IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

DAVID MARTINEZ,

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v. C.A. No.: 5:20-cv-295

COLLECTIVE ACTION

QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., 

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, DAVID MARTINEZ (hereinafter sometimes referred to as 

“Plaintiff”), and others similarly situated, by and through his undersigned counsel, 

sues Defendant, QUALITY CARRIERS, INC. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as 

“Defendant”), and in support thereof states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a collective action by Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, 

against his employer for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Plaintiff seeks damages for unpaid overtime, 

liquidated damages, and a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs.

JURISDICTION

2. This claim is properly before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 

since this claim arises under federal law, and by the private right of action conferred 

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 9
in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because 

Defendant, QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., has offices Bexar County, Texas.

THE PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is an individual residing in Bexar County, Texas.

5. Plaintiff, DAVID MARTINEZ, was employed by Defendant from 

February 27, 2019, to February 3, 2020, as a “Driver.” Plaintiff’s principle duties 

were to haul refinery remnants for oil and gas customers located solely within the 

state of Texas.

6. Defendant, QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., is a corporation existing

under the laws of the State of Illinois and maintains offices in San Antonio, Texas.

7. Defendant, QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., operates a company that 

primarily operates a logistics and trucking business and is an employer as defined 

by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

8. Defendant, QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., has employees subject to the 

provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 206 in the facility where Plaintiff was employed. 

9. At all times material to this complaint, Defendant, QUALITY 

CARRIERS, INC., employed two or more employees and had an annual dollar 

volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000.00.

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 9
10. At all times material to this complaint, Defendant, QUALITY 

CARRIERS, INC., was an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, operating a 

business engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce as 

defined by § 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(r)-(s). 

11. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant was the employer of 

the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated (hereinafter “Class”), and, as a matter of 

economic reality, the Class was dependent upon Defendant for their employment.

12. The Class members were individually engaged in commerce and 

produced goods for commerce and their work was directly and vitally related to the 

functioning of Defendant’s business activities. Specifically, the Class performed 

work relating to the production of oil and gas products for interstate commerce.

VIOLATION OF THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF

THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

13. The Class members are similarly situated, as they all 1) hauled refinery 

remnants for oil and gas customers solely within the state of Texas; 2) did not hold 

positions considered as exempt under the FLSA; and, 3) were paid on a percentage 

per load basis.

14. All of the materials and goods hauled by Class members originated 

within the state of Texas either because they were manufactured within the state of 

Texas or because they had come to rest in the state of Texas at the business locations 

where Class members picked up their loads.

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 9
15. All materials and goods hauled by Class members came to rest within 

the state of Texas or were further refined or altered to such an extent that the 

materials and goods were a different product. 

16. During Class members’ job interviews and/or training, Defendant 

informed Class members that they would only be performing jobs requiring travel 

within the state of Texas.

17. None of the Class members had an understanding that they would be 

called upon to travel outside of the state of Texas while performing duties for 

Defendant.

18. Class members were never informed by Defendant that their driving 

duties might subject them to interstate travel.

19. Class members were part of a separate and distinct department within 

Defendant’s organization which handed the hauling of refinery remnants for oil and 

gas customers within the state of Texas.

20. Class members always drove the same or similar type of truck and were 

always assigned jobs requiring travel solely within the state of Texas.

21. Class members never hauled anything but refinery remnants that 

originated within the state of Texas either because they were quarried within the 

state of Texas or because they had come to rest in the state of Texas at the business 

locations where the picked up their loads.

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 9
22. Throughout the employment of Plaintiff and others Class members

Defendant repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 7 and 15 of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act by failing to compensate Class members at a rate not less than one 

and one-half times their regular rates of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 in 

a workweek. 

23. Specifically, Class members were never paid any overtime for the work 

in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

24. The work schedules for the Class members required them to work in 

excess of 40 hours in a workweek on a regular and recurring basis during numerous 

workweeks. 

25. Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiff 

preliminarily defines this Class as follows: 

ALL CURRENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF QUALITY 

CARRIERS, INC. WHO WERE EMPLOYED AS DRIVERS AT 

QUALITY CARRIERS, INC.’s SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 

TERMINAL FROM MARCH 11, 2017 TO THE PRESENT.

26. This action is properly brought as a collective action for the following 

reasons: 

a. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is 

impracticable. 

b. Numerous questions of law and fact regarding the liability of 

Defendants, are common to the Class and predominate over any 

individual issues which may exist. 

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 9
c. The claims asserted by Plaintiff are typical of the claims of Class 

Members and the Class is readily ascertainable from Defendants’ own 

records. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

d. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class 

Members. The interests of Class Members are coincident with, and 

not antagonistic to, those of Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff is 

represented by experienced class action counsel.

e. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members 

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect 

to individual Class Members which would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct for Defendant.

f. The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members 

would create a risk of adjudications with respect to individual Class 

Members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the 

interests of the other Class Members not parties to the adjudications or 

substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.

g. Defendant acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby 

making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a 

whole.

27. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff seeks certification of an FLSA “optin” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §216(b) for all claims asserted by Plaintiff 

because his claims are nearly identical to those of other Class Members. Plaintiff 

and Class Members are similarly situated, have substantially similar or identical job 

requirements and pay provisions, and are subject to Defendant’s common practice, 

policy or plan regarding employee wages and hours. 

28. In addition to the named Plaintiff, numerous employees and former 

employees of Defendant are similarly situated to Plaintiff in that they have been 

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 9
denied overtime compensation while employed by Defendant.

29. Defendants’ policy of not properly paying overtime is company-wide 

and “Drivers,” throughout the State of Texas, employed by Defendant during the 

three years prior to the filing of this action have been deprived of overtime, similarly 

to the Plaintiff.

30. Plaintiff is representative of these other employees and is acting on 

behalf of their interests as well as Plaintiff’s own interests in bringing this action.

31. Defendant either knew about or showed reckless disregard for the 

matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA and failed to act diligently 

with regard to its obligations as an employer under the FLSA. 

32. Defendants failed to act reasonably to comply with the FLSA, and so

Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, are entitled to an award of liquidated 

damages in an equal amount as the amount of unpaid overtime pay pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b).

33. The acts described in the above paragraphs violate the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, which prohibits the denial of overtime compensation for hours 

worked in excess of 40 per workweek. 

34. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and all others 

similarly situated are entitled to actual and compensatory damages, including the 

amount of overtime which was not paid that should have been paid.

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 7 of 9
35. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are entitled to an award of 

reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, costs, expert fees, mediator fees and outof-pocket expenses incurred by bringing this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) 

and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DAVID MARTINEZ, and all others similarly 

situated, demand Judgment against Defendant for the following:

a. Determining that the action is properly maintained as a class and/or 

collective action, certifying Plaintiff as the class representative, and 

appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for Class Members;

b. Ordering prompt notice of this litigation to all potential Class Members;

c. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members declaratory and/or injunctive 

relief as permitted by law or equity; 

d. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their compensatory damages, 

service awards, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses as provided by 

law;

e. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their pre-judgment, moratory 

interest as provided by law, should liquidated damages not be awarded;

f. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members liquidated damages and/or 

statutory penalties as provided by law;

g. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members such other and further relief as 

the Court deems just and proper. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff, DAVID MARTINEZ, and others similarly situated, demands a jury 

trial on all issues so triable.

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 8 of 9
Respectfully submitted this March 11, 2020.

ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP

1104 San Antonio Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 474-7677 Telephone

(512) 474-5306 Facsimile

Charles@rosslawpc.com

_________________________________

CHARLES L. SCALISE

Texas Bar No. 24064621

DANIEL B. ROSS

Texas Bar No. 789810

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 5:20-cv-00295-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 9 of 9