Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00157-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC MCCULLOCH, individually, on 

behalf of others similarly situated, and on 

behalf of the general public,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAKER HUGHES INTEQ DRILLING 

FLUIDS, INC., et al.,.

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-00157-DAD-JLT

ORDER REGARDING CONDITIONAL 

CERTIFICATION AND PARTIAL STAY

(Doc. No. 23)

On February 3, 2016, plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging violations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as violations of California and Pennsylvania state law. 

(Doc. No. 1.) On August 26, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation and a proposed order which 

would conditionally certify this action as a collective action under the FLSA. (Doc. No. 23.) The 

parties also sought to stay currently scheduled deadlines pending mediation.

Under the FLSA, an employer must pay employees that work more than forty hours in a 

week compensation at one-and-a-half times the regular rate earned for the time in excess of that 

amount. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). By statute, an employee may bring an action on behalf of the

employee and others “similarly situated” for the employer’s failure to pay overtime 

compensation. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Employees must opt-in to such collective action suits via a 

written consent form filed with the court. Id.; see also Misra v. Decision One Mortg. Co., LLC, 

Case 1:16-cv-00157-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

673 F. Supp. 2d 987, 992–93 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “Courts have held that conditional certification 

requires only that ‘plaintiffs make substantial allegations that the putative class members were 

subject to a single illegal policy, plan or decision.’” Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 

F.R.D. 530, 536 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (quoting Leuthold v. Destination Am., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 462, 

468 (N.D. Cal. 2004)). “Under this lenient standard, ‘the plaintiffs must show that there is some 

factual basis beyond the mere averments in their complaint for the class allegations.’” Id. at 536 

(quoting West v. Border Foods, Inc., No. 05-2525, 2006 WL 1892527, at *2 (D. Minn. July 10, 

2006)); see also Misra, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 992–93 (noting the court should make this

determination based on pleadings and affidavits, apply a fairly lenient standard, and typically 

grant conditional class certification); Leuthold, 224 F.R.D. at 467 (same).

Here, the parties stipulate to the conditional certification, while defendant reserves the 

right to seek decertification later. (Doc. No. 23 at 3.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges defendant 

mischaracterized some of its directional drillers as independent contractors, and therefore failed to 

pay overtime as required by law. (Doc. No. 1 at 8.) The parties have stipulated to a class 

consisting of “all persons who provided services as consultant directional drillers, and in other 

independent contractor directional driller positions with similar job titles and/or job duties to 

Baker Hughes, at any time from three years prior to the filing of this action.” (Doc. No. 23 at 2.) 

This class specifically does not include directional drillers at the defendant company who were 

categorized as employees, or independent contractors at the defendant company who were not 

directional drillers. (Doc. No. 23 at 2.)

Given the foregoing and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court orders a class 

conditionally certified consisting of the following:

All persons who provided services as consultant directional drillers, 

and in other independent contractor directional driller positions 

with similar job titles and /or job duties to Baker Hughes, at any 

time from three years prior to the filing of this action.

Defendant may later seek decertification of the class at an appropriate point in time.

/////

/////

Case 1:16-cv-00157-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The parties also seek a stay pending mediation pursuant to their stipulation, agree to notify 

the court of the results of their mediation attempts within three days of the completion of 

mediation or by January 20, 2017, whichever is earlier, and will request a Case Management 

Conference at that time in the event a settlement is not reached. The undersigned finds such a 

stay appropriate and therefore vacates the scheduling order previously entered in this action. 

(Doc. No. 17.) The parties are hereby directed to notify the court within three days of the 

completion of mediation or by January 20, 2017, whichever is earlier, of the status of this action. 

The matter will thereafter be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further scheduling 

as necessary and appropriate, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00157-DAD-JLT Document 26 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3