____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Western District of Texas 

Midland/Odessa Division 

Brandon Douglas, individually and 

on behalf of all those similarly 

situated 

Plaintiff, 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ CA No: 7:20-cv-73

v. §

§

Portable Mud Systems, Inc. 

Defendant 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Collective Action 

Jury Demanded 

COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT 

Brandon Douglas (“Plaintiff”) brings this action individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated against Portable Mud Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) and in support shows the 

Court the following: 

1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

1.1. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., (the “FLSA”) contains 

various rules regarding employee wages and working hours. Defendant violated these 

laws by failing to compensate employees at “time and one-half” their regular rate of pay 

for all overtime hours worked. This collective action seeks to recover damages and 

backpay to compensate all current and former employees of Defendant for these wage 

violations. 

1.2. The Plaintiff and the Collective Members, oil field mechanics, who were non-exempt oil 

field workers, were paid a salary without any allowance for overtime pay. This violates 

the FLSA. 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 2 

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

2.1. Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendant, is an individual and resident of the State of 

Texas. His notice of consent to sue is attached. 

2.2. Defendant is a Texas corporation that may be served with process by serving its 

registered agent: Brandon R. Westenburg, at 4958 Rustic Trail, Midland, Texas 79707. 

2.3. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action pursuant to 

29 U.S.C. §216(b) and 28 U.S.C. §1331. 

2.4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). 

3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

3.1. Defendant is an oilfield services company specializing in solids control for land-based oil 

and gas drilling operations; it does business in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 

3.2. Defendant employed Plaintiff as a solids control technician from approximately October 

2017 to June 2019. 

3.3. Plaintiff’s primary duties were nonexempt duties. 

3.4. As a solids control technician, Plaintiff’s primary duties were to use machines and 

centrifuges clear up any solid blockage so as not to disrupt the drilling operations. 

3.5. Plaintiff’s primary duties did not include office or non-manual work. 

3.6. Plaintiff’s primary duties were not related to the management or general business 

operations of Defendant or its customers. 

3.7. Plaintiff’s duties did not differ substantially from the duties of traditionally nonexempt 

hourly workers. 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 3 

3.8. Plaintiff did not exercise a meaningful degree of independent discretion with respect to 

the exercise of his duties. 

3.9. Plaintiff did not have the discretion or authority to make any decisions with respect to 

matters of significance. 

3.10. Instead, Plaintiff was required to follow the policies, practices and procedures set 

by Defendant. 

3.11. Plaintiff did not have any independent authority to deviate from these policies, 

practices, and procedures. 

3.12. Defendant paid Plaintiff a day rate of $350 per day. 

3.13. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, he regularly worked in excess of 

forty hours per week. 

3.14. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff worked in excess 

of forty hours per week. 

3.15. Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime “at a rate not less than one and one-half 

times the regular rate at which he [was] employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

3.16. Instead, Defendant paid Plaintiff a fixed sum of money regardless of the number of 

hours he worked in a workweek. 

3.17. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff was not exempt 

from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. 

3.18. Defendant failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff as required 

by 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516. 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 4 

3.19. Defendant knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices 

violated the FLSA. 

3.20. Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for his unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages 

and attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

4. COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

4.1. Plaintiff seeks certification of an FLSA “opt-in” 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 Collective Members. Plaintiff and Collective Members are similarly situated, 

have substantially similar or identical job requirements and pay provisions, and were 

subjected to Defendant’s common practice, policy or plan regarding employee wages and 

hours. 

4.2. All solids control technicians employed by Defendant are similarly situated to Plaintiff 

because they (1) have similar job duties and were paid a salary or day rate; (2) regularly 

work in excess of forty hours per week; (3) are not paid overtime for the hours they work 

in excess of forty per week as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) and (4) are entitled to 

recover their unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees and costs 

from Defendant pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

4.3. Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiff preliminarily defines this 

Collective as follows: 

All solids control technicians of Defendant who were paid a salary or day rate and 

no overtime and who worked more than 40 hours in one or more individual 

workweeks beginning three years prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit. 

4.4. Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the Collective Members. 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 5 

4.5. The specific job titles or precise job locations of the various Collective Members do not 

prevent collective treatment. 

5. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – Collective Action (Violation of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq.) 

5.1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs. 

5.2. At all relevant times, Defendant has been, and continues to be, an “employer” within 

the meaning of the FLSA. 

5.3. Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate “commerce” and/or in the production 

of “goods” for “commerce” within the meaning of the FLSA. 

5.4. At all relevant times, Defendant has had gross annual volume of sales in excess of 

$500,000. 

5.5. At all relevant times, Defendant has employed, and continues to employ, non-exempt 

“employees,” including Plaintiff. Plaintiff consents to sue in this action pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. §216(b). 

5.6. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA. 

5.7. While employed by Defendant, Plaintiff was engaged in commerce or in the production 

of goods for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA. Plaintiff and the Collective 

Members specifically handled and used materials that traveled in interstate commerce 

such as oil field equipment. 

5.8. Two or more of Defendant’s employees engage in commerce by using equipment that has 

traveled in interstate commerce. By way of example and not by limitation, Defendant’s 

employees used/use: 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 6 

5.8.1. oil field equipment that has been manufactured and shipped across state lines; 

5.8.2. computers and telecommunications equipment that has been manufactured and 

shipped across state lines; 

5.8.3. office equipment, such as copiers, that has been manufactured and shipped across 

state lines; 

5.8.4. the interstate telephone systems, landline and cellular, to recruit and employ 

individuals for operational positions; 

5.8.5. The United States postal system to send mail across state lines; and 

5.8.6. the interstate banking systems to pay Defendant’s employees. 

5.9. As a result of the foregoing conduct, as alleged, Defendant has violated, and continues to 

violate, the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq. These violations were committed knowingly, 

willfully and with reckless disregard of applicable law. 

5.10. As a result, Plaintiff and the Collective Members has been damaged in an amount 

to be determined at trial. 

6. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION 

6.1. As part of discovery, Plaintiff will be requesting certain documents and information from 

Defendant. Please note the document preservation instructions attached hereto. 

7. REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

7.1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 

himself and the Collective Members and against Defendant as follows: 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 7 

7.1.1.Determining that the action is properly maintained as a collective action under the 

FLSA, certifying Plaintiff as the collective representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s 

counsel as counsel for the Collective Members; 

7.1.2. Ordering prompt notice of this litigation to all potential Collective Members; 

7.1.3.Awarding Plaintiff and Collective Members declaratory and/or injunctive relief as 

permitted by law or equity; 

7.1.4. Awarding Plaintiff and Collective Members their compensatory damages, service 

awards, attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses as provided by law; 

7.1.5.Awarding Plaintiff and Collective Members their pre-judgment, post-judgment and 

moratory interest as provided by law; 

7.1.6. Awarding Plaintiff and Collective Members liquidated damages and/or statutory 

penalties/interest as provided by law; and 

7.1.7.Awarding Plaintiff and Collective Members such other and further relief as the 

Court deems just and proper. 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 8 

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Chris R. Miltenberger 

 Chris R. Miltenberger 

Texas Bar Number: 14171200

The Law Office of Chris R. 

Miltenberger, PLLC 

1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 

Southlake, Texas 76092-4322 

817-416-5060 (office) 

817-416-5062 (fax) 

chris@crmlawpractice.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 9 

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION INSTRUCTIONS 

Plaintiff will be requesting electronic and other documentary evidence during discovery in 

this matter. This evidence will be of critical importance and Plaintiff wants to ensure that the 

types of documentary and electronic evidence that will be requested the course of discovery are 

preserved. 

As you may be aware, “[w]hen a lawyer who has been retained to handle a matter learns that 

litigation is probable or has been commenced, the lawyer should inform the client of its duty to 

preserve potentially relevant documents and of the possible consequences of failing to do so.” 

Standard 10, Preservation of Documents, ABA Civil Discovery Standards (Aug. 2004). This duty 

“applies to information stored in an electronic medium or format...” Id. at Standard 29. 

 Various kinds of electronic and hard-copy data will be important in this lawsuit. The data 

Plaintiff anticipates will be relevant includes, but is not limited to, the following: 

 The portions of any database or system maintained or used that contains time stamps or other 

data, including timesheets and telephone records, relating to the hours worked by Plaintiff 

and putative opt-in plaintiffs and/or class members as well as their pay; 

 Emails and other electronic and hard-copy documents pertaining to Defendant’s decision to 

not pay the overtime premium. 

 Emails and other electronic and hard-copy documents pertaining to Defendant’s reliance on 

department of labor authority when deciding not to pay the overtime premium. 

 Emails and other electronic and hard-copy documents pertaining to any audit or investigation 

performed by the department of labor; 

 Emails and other electronic and hard-copy documents pertaining to the job duties performed 

by Defendant’s employees, including Plaintiff; 

 Emails and other electronic and hard-copy documents pertaining to the hours worked by 

Defendant’s employees, including Plaintiff; 

 Emails sent and received by Plaintiff, putative opt-in plaintiffs or class members, and their 

managers/supervisors; 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 10
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 10 

 Emails and other electronic or hard-copy documents pertaining to Defendant’s compliance 

with the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or state laws; and 

 Emails and other electronic or hard-copy documents pertaining to Plaintiff and all other 

current or former employees. 

This data, including all associated metadata, must be preserved. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that 

Defendant performs offline backups of any databases which contain information of the types 

identified above. Plaintiff also requests that Defendant performs offline backups of all current 

Microsoft Exchange (or other email) databases to external hard drives, preserving their native 

format. These backups should be done routinely from this point forward. 

The laws and rules prohibiting destruction of evidence apply to electronically stored information 

in the same manner that they apply to other evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that 

Defendant takes every reasonable step to preserve this information until the final resolution of 

this matter, and discontinue all data destruction activities, including but not limited to, backup 

tape recycling policies, any automatic email deletion functions, and refrain from disposing of any 

relevant hardware or data storage. In short, Plaintiff requests that the utmost care be taken in the 

preservation of all relevant electronic data, including metadata. 

Case 7:20-cv-00073-DC Document 1 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 10