Pruitt et al v. Act Fast Delivery, Inc. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00049

ANSWER to [1] Complaint, by Act Fast Courier of Texas, Inc., Act Fast Delivery of Houston, Inc., Act Fast Delivery of S.A., Inc., Act Fast Delivery of Travis County, Inc., Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc., Act Fast Delivery, Inc., Act Fast of Coastal Bend, Inc.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SANDRA PRUITT, JASMINE § HUNTSBERRY,YUVANNDA § WATSON, A YAN NUR, and KAREN § LAWSON, Individually and § On Behalf of All Others Similarly § Situated, § Plaintiffs, § § V. § § C.A. No. 5:19-CV-00049-DAE ACT FAST DELIVERY, INC.; ACT § FAST COURIER OF TEXAS, INC.; § ACT FAST DELIVERY OF § HOUSTON, INC.; ACT FAST OF § COASTAL BEND, INC.; ACT FAST § DELIVERY OF S.A., INC.; ACT § FAST DELIVERY OF TYLER, § INC.; ACT FAST DELIVERY OF § TRAVIS COUNTY, INC.; and § MIKE MILLER; § Defendants § DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' ORIGINAL COMPLAINT SUBJECT TO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION [RELATES TO DOC. NO. 1] TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: COME NOW Defendants Act Fast Delivery, Inc.; Act Fast Courier of Texas, Inc.; Act Fast Delivery of Houston, Inc.; Act Fast of Coastal Bend, Inc.; Act Fast Delivery of S.A., Inc.; Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc.; and Act Fast Delivery of Travis County, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") and respond to the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Original Complaint as follows: Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Page I of8 I. Specific Admissions and Denials 1. The allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. 2. The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. 3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint are denied. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint are denied. 5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required, except Defendants deny there are other similarly situated employees. 6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint are admitted. 7. The allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint are admitted. 8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint are admitted to the extent Pruitt is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas, but denied to the extent Defendants employed Pruitt, except as to Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc. which admits it hired Pruitt as an independent contractor. 9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint are admitted to the extent Huntsberry is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas, but denied to the extent Defendants employed Pruitt, except as to Act Fast Delivery of Texas, Inc. which admits it hired Huntsberry as an independent contractor. 10. The allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint are admitted to the extent YuVannda Watson is an individual who resides in Dallas County, Texas, but denied to the extent Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Page 2of8 Defendants employed YuVannda Watson, except as to Act Fast Delivery of Texas, Inc. which admits it employed Watson as an independent contractor and an exempt office manager. 11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint are admitted to the extent Ayan Nur is an individual who resides in Tarrant County, Texas, but denied to the extent Defendants employed Ayan Nur, except as to Act Fast Delivery of Texas, Inc. which admits it hired Nur as an independent contractor. 12. The allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint are admitted to the extent Karen Lawson is an individual who resides in Smith County, Texas, but denied to the extent Defendants employed Karen Lawson, except as to Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc. which admits it hired Lawson as an independent contractor. 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are admitted. 14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint are admitted. 15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint are admitted. 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint are admitted. 17. The allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint are admitted. 18. The allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint are admitted. 19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint are admitted. 20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint are admitted. 21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint are denied except as follows: Defendants admit that Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc. hired Pruitt as an independent contractor. 22. The allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint are denied except as follows: Defendants admit they have similar names. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Page3 of8 23. The allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. To the extent an admission or denial is required, Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint. 24. The allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint are denied. 25. The allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint are denied except as to Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc. which admits it hired Pruitt as an independent contractor. 26. The allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint are denied except as to Act Fast Delivery of Texas, Inc. which admits it hired Huntsberry as an independent contractor. 27. The allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint are denied except as to Act Fast Delivery of Texas, Inc. which admits it hired Watson as an independent contractor. 28. The allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint are denied except as to Act Fast Delivery of Texas, Inc. which admits it hired Nur as an independent contractor. 29. The allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint are denied except as to Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc. which admits it hired Lawson as an independent contractor. 30. The allegations of Paragraph 30 are admitted except there is no production of goods. 31. The allegations of Paragraph 31 are denied. 32. The allegations of Paragraph 32 are admitted. 33. The allegations of Paragraph 33 are admitted. 34. The allegations of Paragraph 34 are admitted. 35. The allegations of Paragraph 35 are denied. 36. The allegations of Paragraph 36 are denied. 37. The allegations of Paragraph 37 are admitted. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Page4 of8 38. The allegations of Paragraph 38 are denied. 39. The allegations of Paragraph 39 are denied. 40. The allegations of Paragraph 40 are denied. 41. The allegations of Paragraph 41 are denied. 42. The allegations of Paragraph 42 are denied. 43. The allegations of Paragraph 43 are denied. 44. The allegations of Paragraph 44 are admitted. 45. The allegations of Paragraph 45 are admitted as to couriers hired as independent contractors. 46. The allegations of Paragraph 46 are admitted as to dispatchers hired as independent contractors. 47. The allegations of Paragraph 47 are denied. 48. The allegations of Paragraph 48 are denied. 49. The allegations of Paragraph 49 are denied. 50. The allegations of Paragraph 50 are denied. 51. The allegations of Paragraph 51 are denied. 52. The allegations of Paragraph 52 are a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required the allegations are denied. 53. The allegations of Paragraph 53 are denied. 54. The allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. 55. The allegations of Paragraph 56 are denied. 56. The allegations of Paragraph 56 are denied. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Origi11al Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Pages of8 57. The allegations of Paragraph 57 are admitted. 58. The allegations of Paragraph 58 are denied except Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc. admits as to Pruitt and Act Fast Delivery of Texas, Inc. admits as to Jasmine Huntsberry. 59. The allegations of Paragraph 59 are denied. 60. The allegations of Paragraph 60 are denied. 61. The allegations of Paragraph 61 are a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required the allegations are denied. 62. The allegations of Paragraph 62 are denied. 63. The allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. 64. The allegations of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. 65. The allegations of Paragraph 65 are denied. 66. The allegations of Paragraph 66 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. 67. The allegations of Paragraph 67 are denied. 68. The allegations of Paragraph 68 are denied. 69. The allegations of Paragraph 69 are denied. 70. The allegations of Paragraph 70 are denied. 71. The allegations of Paragraph 71 are denied. 72. The allegations of Paragraph 72 are denied. 73. The allegations of Paragraph 73 are denied. 74. The allegations of Paragraph 74 are denied. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Page6 of8 75. The allegations of Paragraph 75 are denied. 76. The allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Complaint are not directed at Defendants and therefore no response is required. 77. The allegations of Paragraph 75 are denied. II. Affirmative Defenses 78. Plaintiff is not entitled to recover compensation for time not compensable under the FLSA. 79. Defendants deny that this matter is appropriate for certification as a collective action under the FLSA. Additionally, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are an adequate and/or proper representative of the purported collective action class for which she seeks to represent. 80. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs were independent contractors. 81. Defendants plead offset and overpayment credits as allowed by applicable law. 82. Defendants assert the defense of good faith, reasonableness and 29 U.S.C. §260. WHEREFORE, Defendants Act Fast Delivery, Inc.; Act Fast Courier of Texas, Inc.; Act Fast Delivery of Houston, Inc.; Act Fast of Coastal Bend, Inc.; Act Fast Delivery of S.A., Inc.; Act Fast Delivery of Tyler, Inc.; and Act Fast Delivery of Travis County, Inc. respectfully request that Plaintiffs take nothing by their suit and that Defendants have and recover costs and such other and further relief, general or special, legal or equitable, to which they may be justly entitled. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Page 7of8 Respectfully submitted, By: ls/ Joseph F Colvin, Jr. Joseph F. Colvin, Jr. TBN: 24072777 Hughes Watters Askanase, L.L.P. Total Plaza 1201 Louisiana, 28 th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Phone:(713) 759-0818 Fax: (713) 759-6834 jcol in@hwa. om ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration was served on the following counsel ofrecord via the Court's ECF Filing System on the 7th day of June 2019: Melissa Moore Curt Christopher Hesse Bridget Dale Davidson Moore & Associates Lyric Center 440 Louisiana, Ste. 675 Houston, Texas 77002 By: Isl Joseph F. Colvin. Jr. Joseph F. Colvin, Jr. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs' Original Complaint Subject to Motion to Compel Arbitration Page8of8