Page 1 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

MARTIN FLORES, Individually and on PLAINTIFF

Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated

vs. No. 7:20-cv-77

PERMIAN LODGING, LLC DEFENDANT

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT—COLLECTIVE ACTION

COMES NOW Plaintiff Martin Flores (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, by and through his attorney Josh Sanford of the Sanford Law 

Firm, PLLC, and for his Original Complaint—Collective Action against Defendant

Permian Lodging, LLC (“Defendant”), he does state and allege as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS

1. This is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of 

all similarly situated employees who were employed by Defendant at any time within a 

three-year period preceding the filing of this Complaint. 

2. Plaintiff brings this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 

201, et seq. (“FLSA”), for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated 

damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees as a 

result of Defendant’s failure to pay Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees

minimum wage and/or lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 

forty (40) per week.

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 10
Page 2 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

3. Upon information and belief, for at least three (3) years prior to the filing of this 

Complaint, Defendant has willfully and intentionally committed violations of the FLSA as 

described, infra. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has 

subject matter jurisdiction over this suit under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because this suit raises federal questions under the FLSA.

5. Venue lies properly within this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and 

(c)(2) because the State of Texas has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and 

Defendant therefore “resides” in Texas. 

6. Defendant does business within the Midland/Odessa Division of the 

Western District of Texas.

III. THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Val Verde County.

8. Defendant is a domestic limited liability company.

9. Defendant’s registered agent for service is Louis Mertz, at 550 Post Oak 

Boulevard, Suite 490, Houston, Texas 77027. 

10. Defendant maintains a website at https://www.permianlodging.com/.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint as if fully set forth in this section.

12. Defendant operates hotels throughout Texas and New Mexico. 

13. Defendant employs two or more individuals who engage in interstate

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 10
Page 3 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

commerce or business transactions, or who produce goods to be transported or sold in 

interstate commerce, or who handle, sell, or otherwise work with goods or materials that 

have been moved in or produced for interstate commerce.

14. Defendant’s annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not 

less than $500,000.00 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level that are separately 

stated) for each of the three years preceding the filing of this Complaint. 

15. Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 203(d) at all times relevant to this lawsuit.

16. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as an hourly employee at Defendant’s 

hotel during the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.

17. Plaintiff, as an employee of Defendant, was engaged in commerce or in

the production of goods for commerce.

18. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately July of 2019 until 

February of 2020. 

19. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a maintenance worker during the 

time period relevant to this lawsuit.

20. Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were primarily responsible for

picking up garbage, monitoring the generator, and performing other maintenance-type 

work assigned to them.

21. For some time during the three years preceding the filing of this Original 

Complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees each performed the duties of 

a maintenance worker on Defendant’s behalf. 

22. Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 10
Page 4 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

forty (40) hours in a workweek. 

23. In addition to their regular pay, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees 

received a one hundred percent (100%) rent credit. 

24. In addition to their regular pay, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees 

received a monthly meal credit.

25. The rent and meal credits were a form of compensation to Plaintiff and 

similarly situated employees. 

26. During weeks in which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees worked 

over forty (40) hours, Defendant paid an improper overtime rate because Defendant 

failed to include the value of the rent and meal credits that Defendant provided to

Plaintiff and similarly situated employees when calculating their overtime rate. 

27. Section 778.208 of Title 29 of the CFR requires that all forms of 

compensation, such as rent and meal credits, “must be totaled in with other earnings to 

determine the regular rate on which overtime pay must be based.” 

28. Therefore, Defendant violated the FLSA by not including all forms of 

compensation, such as the rent and meal credits, in the regular rate when calculating 

Plaintiff’s and similarly situated employees’ overtime pay.

29. At all relevant times herein, Defendant has deprived Plaintiff and similarly 

situated employees of proper overtime compensation for all of the hours worked over 

forty (40) per week.

30. Defendant knew or showed reckless disregard for whether its actions

violated the FLSA. 

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 10
Page 5 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

V. REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint 

as though fully set forth herein.

32. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated have been 

entitled to the rights, protections and benefits provided by the FLSA.

33. Plaintiff brings his claim for relief for violation of the FLSA as a collective 

action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all

persons who were, are, or will be employed by Defendant as similarly situated 

employees at any time within the applicable statute of limitations period, who are 

entitled to payment of the following types of damages:

A. An overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week;

B. Liquidated damages; and

C. Costs of this action, including attorney’s fees.

34. The proposed class of opt-in plaintiffs in this case is preliminarily defined 

as follows:

All maintenance workers who received a rent or meal credit and worked 

more than forty (40) hours in any week within the past three years.

35. The proposed FLSA collective members are similarly situated in that they 

share these traits:

A. They performed the same or similar job duties;

B. They received a rent credit, a meal credit, or both; and

C. They were subject to Defendant’s common policy of not paying a proper 

overtime premium for all hours worked over forty (40) per week. 

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 10
Page 6 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

36. At all relevant times, Defendant directly hired members of the putative 

class to work as maintenance workers; paid them wages; controlled their work 

schedules, duties, protocols, applications, assignments and employment conditions;

and kept at least some records regarding their employment.

37. At all relevant times, each member of the putative class regularly engaged 

in interstate commerce or handled, sold, or otherwise worked with goods or materials 

that had been moved in or produced for interstate commerce.

38. Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the class but believes the 

number to be more than five (5) individuals. Defendant can readily identify the members 

of the class, who are a certain portion of the current and former employees of 

Defendant.

39. The names and physical and mailing addresses of the probable FLSA

collective action plaintiffs are available from Defendant, and notice should be provided 

to the probable FLSA collective action plaintiffs via first class mail to their last known 

physical and mailing addresses as soon as possible.

40. The email addresses of many of the probable FLSA collective action

plaintiffs are available from Defendant, and notice should be provided to the probable 

FLSA collective action plaintiffs via email to their last known email address as soon as 

possible.

41. Defendant’s actions in denying overtime wages to Plaintiff and all other 

similarly situated employees were intentional and constitute a willful violation of the 

FLSA.

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 10
Page 7 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

VI. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Collective Action Claim for Violation of the FLSA)

42. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint 

as though fully set forth herein.

43. Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly situated, asserts this claim for 

damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.

44. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees have 

been entitled to the rights, protection, and benefits provided by the FLSA.

45. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees have 

been “employees” of Defendant, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).

46. At all relevant times, Defendant was an “employer” of Plaintiff and all 

similarly situated employees, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

47. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 require any enterprise engaged in commerce to 

pay all employees a minimum wage for all hours worked up to forty (40) in one week 

and to pay one and one-half times regular wages for all hours worked over forty (40) 

hours in a week, unless an employee meets certain exemption requirements of 29 

U.S.C. § 213 and all accompanying Department of Labor regulations.

48. At all relevant times, Defendant willfully failed and refused to pay a proper

overtime premium to Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked 

over forty (40) per week.

49. Defendant violated Section 778.208 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal

Regulations by not including all forms of compensation, including rent credit, for Plaintiff

and others in their regular rate when calculating their overtime pay.

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 10
Page 8 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

50. By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendant is liable to 

Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees for monetary damages, liquidated 

damages, and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, for all violations that occurred 

within the three (3) years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

VII. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Individual Claim for Violation of the FLSA)

51. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all previous paragraphs of this Complaint 

as though fully set forth herein.

52. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been entitled to the rights, protection, 

and benefits provided by the FLSA.

53. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been an “employee” of Defendant as 

defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e).

54. At all relevant times, Defendant was an “employer” of Plaintiff as defined 

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

55. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207 require any enterprise engaged in commerce to 

pay all employees a minimum wage for all hours worked up to forty (40) in one week 

and to pay one and one-half times regular wages for all hours worked over forty (40) 

hours in a week, unless an employee meets certain exemption requirements of 29 

U.S.C. § 213 and all accompanying Department of Labor regulations.

56. Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay Plaintiff a proper overtime 

premium for all hours worked over forty (40) per week. 

57. Defendant violated Section 778.208 of Title 29 of the CFR by not including 

all forms of compensation, including rent credit, for Plaintiff in his regular rate when 

calculating his overtime pay.

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 8 of 10
Page 9 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

58. By reason of the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendant is liable to 

Plaintiff for monetary damages, liquidated damages, and costs, including reasonable 

attorneys’ fees, for all violations that occurred within the three (3) years prior to the filing 

of this Complaint.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff Martin Flores, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully requests this Court to grant the 

following relief:

A. Declaratory judgment that Defendants’ practices alleged in this Complaint 

violate the FLSA and its related regulations;

B. Certification of a class under Section 216 of the FLSA of all individuals 

similarly situated, as further defined in any motion for the same;

C. Judgment for damages suffered by Plaintiff and all others similarly situated

for all unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA and its related regulations;

D. Judgment for liquidated damages owed to Plaintiff and all others similarly 

situated pursuant to the FLSA and its related regulations;

E. An order directing Defendants to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly 

situated prejudgment interest, a reasonable attorney’s fee and all costs connected with 

this action; and

F. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 9 of 10
Page 10 of 10

Martin Flores, et al., v. Permian Lodging, LLC

U.S.D.C. (W.D. Tex.) Case No. 7:20-cv-77

Original Complaint—Collective Action

Respectfully submitted,

MARTIN FLORES, Individually

and on Behalf of all Others 

Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF

SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC

ONE FINANCIAL CENTER

650 S. SHACKLEFORD SUITE 411

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72211

TELEPHONE: (501) 221-0088 

FACSIMILE: (888) 787-2040

/s/ Josh Sanford

Josh Sanford

Tex. Bar No. 24077858

josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Case 7:20-cv-00077-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 10 of 10