1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MIDLAND DIVISION

DEWAYNE SOLENBERG, on behalf of Himself and Others Case No.

Similarly Situated, 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs,

v. COLLECTIVE ACTION 

PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. 

216(b)

UNIVERSAL PRESSURE PUMPING, INC. and PANDA 

TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC

Defendants.

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

SUMMARY

1. Dewayne Solenberg (“Solenberg”) brings this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime 

wages and other damages from Universal Pressure Pumping, Inc. (“Universal”) and Panda 

Technical Services, LLC (“Panda”) (collectively, “Defendants”) under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act (“FLSA”). See 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq.

2. Solenberg worked for Defendants as a Field Mechanic/Field Technician. 

3. Solenberg and other workers like him regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 

forty (40) hours each week.

4. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of forty (40) 

hours in a single workweek. 

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 16
2

5. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendants improperly 

classified Solenberg and those similarly situated as independent contractors, and these workers 

received an hourly rate for each hour worked without overtime compensation.

6. Solenberg and those similarly situated received the same hourly rate regardless of 

whether the time they worked was less than 40 hours or more than 40 hours during the workweek 

(“Straight Time for Overtime”). 

7. Solenberg and those similarly situated never received a guaranteed salary.

8. This collective action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other 

damages owed to these workers. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because this action involves a federal question under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)

10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) as Defendants 

conduct substantial business operations in this District and Division.

11. Specifically, Defendants conduct substantial business operations in and around 

Midland, Texas, and Solenberg performed work for Defendants in and around Midland, Texas. 

PARTIES

12. Solenberg worked as a Field Mechanic/Field Technician for Defendants within the 

last three years. 

13. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Solenberg was paid an hourly rate 

with no overtime compensation and was classified as an independent contractor. 

14. Solenberg’s relationship with Defendants was an employer/employee relationship.

15. His written consent is attached as Exhibit A.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 16
3

16. Solenberg brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

Field Mechanics/Field Technicians who were classified as independent contractors and paid an 

hourly rate without overtime compensation by Defendants. 

17. Defendants paid each of these workers an hourly rate for each hour worked and failed 

to pay them overtime for all hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in 

accordance with the FLSA. 

18. The collective of similarly situated employees sought to be certified is defined as 

follows:

All Field Mechanics/Field Technicians employed as independent contractors 

by, or working on behalf of Defendants, who were paid an hourly rate 

without overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at 

anytime during the past 3 years (“FLSA Class Members”).

19. The FLSA Class Members are easily ascertainable from Defendant’s business and 

personnel records. 

20. Defendant Universal, which provides pressure pumping, cementing, acidizing and 

reservoir enhancement services to the oil and gas industry, maintains its headquarters at 6 Desta 

Drive, Suite 4400, Midland, Texas 79705 and may be served with process by serving its registered 

agent Capitol Corporate Services, 206 E. 9th Street, Suite 1300, Austin, Texas 78701. 

21. Defendant Panda, which provides staffing services to service providers in the oil and 

gas industry, maintains its headquarters at 124 South Main Street, Suite 220, Burleson, Texas 76028

and may be served with process by serving its registered agent: Herb K. Minor, Jr., 3541 Denton 

Highway, Haltom City, Texas 76117.

COVERAGE UNDER THE FLSA

22. At all times, Defendants have been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d) 

of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 16
4

23. At all times, Defendants have been part of an enterprise within the meaning of 

Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r).

24. At all times, Defendants have been part of an enterprise engaged in commerce or in 

the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. § 203(s)(1). Defendants have and have had employees engaged in commerce or in the 

production of goods for commerce, or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on 

goods or materials -- such as tools, cell phones, and personal protective equipment - that have 

been moved in or produced for commerce.

25. Defendants have had and have an annual gross volume of sales made or business 

done in excess of $500,000. 

26. At all times, Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members were engaged in commerce 

or in the production of goods for commerce.

27. Defendants treated Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members as employees and 

uniformly dictated the pay practices and other employment terms and conditions that they applied 

to Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members.

28. Defendants’ misclassification of Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members as 

independent contractors does not alter their status as employees for purposes of the FLSA.

29. Defendants’ uniform Straight Time for Overtime compensation practice, which

deprived their employees of overtime compensation for weeks in which these workers worked

over 40 hours, is a violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) & (e).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

30. Universal is an oil and gas service provider operating nationwide, including Texas 

and Oklahoma.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 16
5

31. Panda is a staffing services provider operating nationwide, including Texas and 

Oklahoma.

32. To provide services to their many customers, Universal hires workers to perform 

operation and maintenance work.

33. Some of the workers hired by Universal were provided by staffing services firm 

Panda.

34. Defendants considered Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members to be contractors.

35. But Defendants did not hire these workers on a project-by-project basis.

36. Rather, Defendants hired and treated these workers just like regular, even if 

sometimes short term, employees. 

37. These individuals worked for Defendants on an hourly basis (without overtime 

pay).

38. These workers make up the proposed FLSA Class.

39. Solenberg worked for Defendants as a Field Mechanic/Field Technician within the 

last three (3) years.

40. As a Field Mechanic/Field Technician, Solenberg’s primary duties included 

operating oilfield machinery, performing maintenance on equipment, and working with other 

oilfield employees to perform those tasks. 

41. Solenberg did not have any supervisory duties.

42. Solenberg did not hire or fire employees.

43. Solenberg did not exercise discretion and judgement as to matters of significance.

44. Solenberg was a blue-collar worker.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 16
6

45. Throughout his employment with Defendants, Solenberg was classified as an 

independent contractor.

46. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members worked for Defendants under their

Straight Time for Overtime compensation practice.

47. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members did not receive a salary.

48. If Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members did not work, they did not get paid.

49. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members received an hourly rate of $35.00 for each 

hour they worked.

50. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members did not receive the half-time premium

required by the FLSA for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

51. This is despite the fact that Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members typically 

worked 60 to 80 hours per week (i.e., 10 to 12 hours a day, for as many as 7 days a week, for 

weeks at a time).

52. Although Solenberg typically worked 60 to 80 hours per week, he did not receive 

overtime pay.

53. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members received their hourly rate regardless of the 

number of hours they worked, and were paid Straight Time for Overtime if they worked more 

than 40 hours in a workweek.

54. Without the job performed by Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members, 

Defendants would not have been able to complete their business objectives.

55. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members relied on Defendants for work and 

compensation. 

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 16
7

56. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members worked in accordance with the schedule 

set by Defendants.

57. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members could not subcontract out work they were

assigned by Defendants.

58. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members were required to follow Defendants’ or 

their clients’ policies and procedures.

59. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members’ work had to adhere to the quality 

standards put in place by Defendants and/or their clients.

60. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members did not market their services while 

employed by Defendants.

61. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members worked exclusively for Defendants during 

the relevant time period.

62. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members did not incur operating expenses like rent, 

payroll, marketing, and/or insurance.

63. Defendants and/or their clients controlled Solenberg’s and the FLSA Class 

Members’ work schedule, which prohibited them from working other jobs for other companies 

while working for Defendants. 

64. At all relevant times, Defendants and/or their clients maintained control, oversight, 

and direction of Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members, including, but not limited to, hiring, 

firing, disciplining, timekeeping, payroll, and other employment practices.

65. Solenberg’s work schedule was typical of the FLSA Class Members.

66. Defendants controlled Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members’ pay.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 16
8

67. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members were not required to possess any unique 

or specialized skillset to perform their job duties.

68. Defendants knew Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members worked for 60 to 80

hours per workweek. 

69. Defendants’ records reflect the fact that Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members 

regularly worked far in excess of 40 hours in certain workweeks.

70. Defendants knew that Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members did not receive 

overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any of those weeks.

71. Instead, Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members were paid Straight Time for 

Overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. 

72. Defendants controlled Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members’ opportunities for 

profit and loss by dictating the days and hours they worked and the rates they were paid.

73. While working for Defendants, Defendants controlled all of the significant or 

meaningful aspects of Solenberg’s and the FLSA Class Members’ job duties.

74. Defendants exercised control over the hours and locations Solenberg and the FLSA 

Class Members’ worked, the equipment they used, and the rates of pay they received. 

75. Even though Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members may have worked away 

from Defendants’ offices, Defendants still controlled significant aspects of their job activities by 

enforcing mandatory compliance with their (or their clients’) policies and procedures.

76. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members do not incur operating expenses like rent, 

payroll, marketing, and insurance.

77. All of the FLSA Class Members performed similar job duties and were subject to 

the same or similar policies and procedures which dictated the day-to-day activities they perform.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 16
9

78. All of the FLSA Class Members worked similar hours and were denied overtime as 

a result of the illegal Straight Time for Overtime compensation practice.

79. All of the FLSA Class Members worked in excess of 40 hours each week.

80. Defendants denied Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members overtime for the hours 

they work in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

81. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members did not, and have never, received 

guaranteed weekly compensation irrespective of the days worked (i.e., the only compensation 

they received is the hourly rate they were assigned for all hours worked in a single day or week).

82. Defendants’ Straight Time for Overtime practice violates the FLSA because it 

deprives Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members of overtime for the hours they work in excess 

of 40 hours in a single workweek.

83. Defendants knew Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members worked more than 40 

hours in a workweek.

84. Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether the FLSA Class 

Members were not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions.

85. Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether the conduct described 

in this Complaint violated the FLSA.

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

86. Solenberg brings this claim as a collective action under the FLSA.

87. The FLSA Class Members were victimized by Defendants’ pattern, practice, and/or 

pay policy which is in willful violation of the FLSA.

88. Other FLSA Class Members worked with Solenberg and were paid in the same 

manner (an hourly rate and Straight Time for Overtime) and performed similar work.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 16
10

89. Based on his experiences with Defendants, Solenberg is aware that Defendants’ 

illegal practices were imposed on the FLSA Class Members.

90. The FLSA Class Members are similarly situated in all relevant respects.

91. The FLSA Class Members are blue-collar workers.

92. Even if their precise job duties might vary somewhat, these differences do not 

matter for the purposes of determining their entitlement to overtime.

93. The illegal Straight Time for Overtime compensation practice that Defendnats 

imposed on Solenberg was likewise imposed on all FLSA Class Members. 

94. Numerous individuals are victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy which is 

in willful violation of the FLSA. 

95. The FLSA Class Members were similarly denied overtime when they work more 

than 40 hours per week. 

96. The overtime owed to Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members will be calculated 

using the same records and using the same formula.

97. Solenberg’s experiences are therefore typical of the experiences of the FLSA Class 

Members.

98. The specific job titles or precise job locations of the various members of the FLSA 

Class do not prevent collective treatment.

99. Solenberg has no interests contrary to, or in conflict with, the FLSA Class that 

would prevent collective treatment. 

100. Like each FLSA Class Member, Solenberg has an interest in obtaining the unpaid 

overtime wages owed under federal law.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 16
11

101. Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members sustained damages arising out of 

Defendants’ illegal and uniform Straight Time for Overtime compensation practice.

102. Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to pay overtime to Solenberg and 

the FLSA Class Members.

103. Consistent with Defendants’ illegal Straight Time for Overtime compensation 

practice, Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members were not paid the proper premium overtime 

compensation when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.

104. As part of their regular business practices, Defendants intentionally, willfully, and 

repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA with respect to 

Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members.

105. Defendants’ Straight Time for Overtime compensation practice deprived Solenberg 

and the FLSA Class Members of the premium overtime wages they were owed under federal law.

106. Defendants are aware, or should have been aware, that the FLSA required them to 

pay Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess 

of 40 hours per workweek.

107. There are many similarly situated FLSA Class Members who have been denied 

overtime pay in violation of the FLSA who would benefit from the issuance of a court-supervised 

notice of this lawsuit and the opportunity to join in.

108. This notice should be sent to the FLSA Class Members pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b).

109. Those similarly situated employees are known to Defendants, are readily 

identifiable, and can be located through Defendants’ records.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 16
12

CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF THE FLSA

110. Solenberg realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations in the preceding 

paragraphs.

111. Solenberg brings his FLSA claim as a collective action under 29 U.S.C § 216(b).

112. Defendants violated, and are violating, the FLSA by failing to pay Solenberg and 

the FLSA Class Members overtime.

113. Defendants misclassified Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members for purposes of 

the FLSA overtime requirements.

114. Defendants cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that Solenberg and the FLSA 

Class Members were exempt from overtime under the executive exemption.

115. Defendants cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that Solenberg and the FLSA 

Class Members were exempt from overtime under the executive administrative exemption.

116. Defendants cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that Solenberg and the FLSA 

Class Members were exempt from overtime under the professional exemption.

117. Defendants cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that Solenberg and the FLSA 

Class Members were exempt from overtime under the highly compensated exemption.

118. Defendants misclassified Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members as contractors.

119. Defendants failed to guarantee Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members a salary.

120. Defendants failed to pay Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members overtime.

121. Defendants paid Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members an hourly rate and 

Straight Time for Overtime.

122. Defendants knowingly, willfully, or in reckless disregard carried out this illegal 

pattern or practice of failing to pay the FLSA Class overtime compensation.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 16
13

123. Defendants’ failure to pay overtime compensation to these employees was neither 

reasonable, nor was the decision not to pay overtime made in good faith.

124. Accordingly, Solenberg and the FLSA Class Members are entitled to overtime 

wages under the FLSA in an amount equal to 1.5 times their rate of pay, plus liquidated damages, 

attorney’s fees and costs.

JURY DEMAND

125. Solenberg demands a jury trial.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Solenberg, individually, and on behalf of the FLSA Class Members 

respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:

a. An order designating this lawsuit as a collective action and authorizing 

notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) to the FLSA Class Members to 

permit them to join this action by filing written notice of consent;

b. A judgment against Defendants awarding Solenberg and the FLSA Class 

Members all of their unpaid overtime compensation and an additional, equal 

amount, as liquidated damages;

c. Issuance of a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of in this 

Complaint are unlawful under the FLSA;

d. An order awarding attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses;

e. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest applicable rates; and

f. Such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate.

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 13 of 16
14

Respectfully submitted, 

BY: /s/ Christopher E. Stoy

CHRISTOPHER E. STOY

State Bar No. 24075125

E-mail: cesservice@hsjustice.com

S. RAFE FOREMAN

State Bar No. TX 07255200

E-mail: SRFservice@hsjustice.com

HUTCHINSON & STOY

505 Pecan Street, Suite 101

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Telephone: (817) 820-0100

&

BY: /s/ Lewis B. Gardner

LEWIS B. GARDNER

State Bar No. 00795931

E-mail: lgardner@gfemploymentlaw.com

ROBERT W. FRANKHOUSER

E-mail: rfrankhouser@gfemploymentlaw.com

GARDNER FRANKHOUSER, LLP 

7418 Brighton Road, Suite 211

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15202 

Telephone: (412) 903-7720

Pro Hac Vice Application Pending

ATTORNEYS-IN-CHARGE FOR PLAINTIFFS

 

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 14 of 16
EXHIBIT A

Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 15 of 16
Case 7:20-cv-00023 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 16 of 16