Allen et al v. Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C.
| Donald Allen, Javier Bautista, Adam D Crews, Odell Godfrey, Jerome Johnson, Mark LaFleur, Stephen Tankersly, Robert Smith, Dustin Snell, Michael Spears and Donald Woodard |
| Coil Tubing Services, L.L.C. |
| 4:2008cv03370 |
| November 13, 2008 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas |
| Houston Office |
| Harris |
| Nancy F. Atlas |
| Labor: Fair Standards |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 5 (a) Fair Labor Standards Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
300
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER.ORDERED that summary judgment in Defendants favor is GRANTED that Field Service Employees, except those employees in the Broussard District who were assigned exclusively to offshore projects, are barred from overtime compensation under the Motor Carrier Act exemption for claims from November 2006 through June 5, 2008. It is furtherORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on the MCA Exemption is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that summary judgment is DENIED as to b oth parties regarding application of the MCA Exemption to all Field Service Employees assigned exclusively to offshore projects at the Broussard District for the period from November 13, 2006 to June 5, 2008. It is further ORDERED that summary judgm ent is GRANTED in CTSs favor that Henderson is within the Executive Exemption and the Highly Compensated Exemption. It is further ORDERED that summary judgment is DENIED to CTS on whether Sheikh is within the Professional Exemption. It is further O RDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant CTS that any violation of the FLSA in failing to pay overtime as described above was not willful and a two-year limitations period applies to this case. It is furtherORDERED that summary judgment is DENIED as premature on the issue of liquidated damages. It is furtherORDERED that all parties summary judgment motions are DENIED on the following issues: 1.Whether and to what extent any Plaintiff is entitled to overtime wages for hours worked on or after June 6, 2008.2.Whether any Bellwether Plaintiff qualifies as a drivers helper or as a loader under the Motor Carrier Act exemption; and 3.Whether Sheikh qualified for either the MCA Exemption or the Professional Exemption. SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 11th day of January, 2012.(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )
|
|
Filing
299
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Defendants Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 288] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is furtherORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 289] is DENIED. It is furtherORDERED that the Courts Memorandum and Order [Doc. # 283] entered October 17, 2011, is VACATED and will be replaced by a revised Memorandum and Order. [(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, )
|
|
Filing
283
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the pending Motions forSummary Judgment [Docs. # 218-230, # 232, # 233, and # 246] are GRANTED inpart and DENIED in part. Specifically, it is herebyORDERED that summary judgment in Plaintiffs favor is GRANTED thatField Service Employees at the Alice and Bridgeport Districts are not barred fromovertime compensation under the Motor Carrier Act exemption for claims fromNovember 2006 through June 6, 2008. It is furtherORDERED t hat summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant CTSthat the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies to all Field Service Employees at theAngleton District for the period from November 13, 2006 to June 6, 2008. It is furtherORDERED that summary judg ment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant CTSthat the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies to Field Service Employees at theBroussard District assigned to land-based projects for the period from November 13,2006 to June 6, 2008. It is furtherP:\ORDER S\11-2008\3370MsSJ.wpd 111017.1217 65ORDERED that summary judgment is DENIED as to both parties regardingapplication of the Motor Carrier Act Exemption to all Field Service Employees onoffshore projects at the Broussard District for the per iod from November 13, 2006 toJune 6, 2008. It is furtherORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in CTSs favor thatHenderson is within the Executive Exemption and the Highly CompensatedExemption. It is furtherORDERED that summary judgment is DENIED t o CTS on whether Sheikh iswithin the Professional Exemption. It is furtherORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant CTSthat any violation of the FLSA in failing to pay overtime as described above was notwillful and a two-year lim itations period applies to this case. It is furtherORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED aspremature in part on the issue of liquidated damages. It is furtherORDERED that all parties summary judgment motions are DENIED on thefol lowing issues:1. Whether and to what extent any Plaintiff is entitled to overtime after June6, 2008.2. Whether any Bellwether Plaintiff qualifies as a drivers helper or as aloader under the Motor Carrier Act exemption; and3. Whether Sheikh qualified for either the MCA Exemption or theProfessional Exemption. It is furtherORDERED that counsel must appear for a status conference on October 27,2011, at 10:00 a.m. Conference set for 10/27/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9F before Judge Nancy F. Atlas).(Signed by Judge Nancy F. Atlas) Parties notified.(sashabranner, ) Modified on 10/17/2011 (sashabranner, ).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Texas Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
