UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND DIVISION 

LUIS ROQUE, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PETRO MECHANICAL SERVICES, 

LLC, 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

No. ___________________

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

COMES NOW Plaintiff Luis Roque (referred to as “Plaintiff” or “Roque”) bringing 

this collective action and lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees 

to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant Petro Mechanical Services, LLC (referred 

to as “Defendant” or “Petro Mechanical”). In support thereof, he would respectfully show the 

Court as follows: 

I. Nature of Suit

1. Roque’s claims arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 

201-219 (“FLSA”).

2. The FLSA was enacted to eliminate “labor conditions detrimental to the

maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency and general 

well-being of workers.” 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). To achieve its humanitarian goals, the FLSA 

7:20-cv-00087

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 10
- 2 - 

defines appropriate pay deductions and sets overtime pay, minimum wage, and recordkeeping 

requirements for covered employers. 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a), 207(a), 211(c). 

3. Petro Mechanical violated the FLSA by employing Roque and other similarly 

situated nonexempt employees “for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to 

compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours ... at a rate not less than 

one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 

207(a)(1). 

4. Petro Mechanical violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and 

pay records for Roque and other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by 29 

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

5. Roque brings this collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) on behalf of 

himself and all other similarly situated employees to recover unpaid overtime wages. 

II. Jurisdiction & Venue 

6. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 

U.S.C. § 216(b) because it arises under the FLSA, a federal statute. 

7. Venue is proper in this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1391(b)(1), (2) because Petro Mechanical resides in the Midland Division of the Western 

District of Texas and/or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Roque’s 

claims occurred in the Midland Division of the Western District of Texas. 

 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 10
- 3 - 

III. Parties 

8. Luis Roque is an individual who resides in Odessa, Texas and who was 

employed by Petro Mechanical during the last three years. 

9. Petro Mechanical Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that may 

be served with process by serving its registered agent: 

Ross A. Skolnick 

1504 Colony Circle 

Longview, Texas 75604 

Alternatively, if the registered agent of Petro Mechanical cannot with reasonable diligence be 

found at the company’s registered office, Petro Mechanical may be served with process by 

serving the Texas Secretary of State pursuant to TEX. BUS. ORG.CODE § 5.251 and TEX.CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.026. 

10. Whenever it is alleged that Defendant committed any act or omission, it is 

meant that the company’s officers, directors, vice-principals, agents, servants or employees 

committed such act or omission and that, at the time such act or omission was committed, it 

was done with the full authorization, ratification or approval of Defendant or was done in the 

routine and normal course and scope of employment of the company’s officers, directors, viceprincipals, agents, servants or employees. 

IV. Facts 

11. According to its website, Petro Mechanical is a mechanical services company 

that serves the oil and gas industry; it does business in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 10
- 4 - 

12. Petro Mechanical employed Roque as a welder from approximately October 

2018 to March 2020. 

13. Throughout Roque’s employment with Petro Mechanical, he was paid on an 

hourly basis. 

14. During Roque’s employment with Petro Mechanical, he regularly worked in 

excess of forty hour per week. 

15. Petro Mechanical knew or reasonably should have known that Roque worked in 

excess of forty hours per week. 

16. Petro Mechanical did not pay Roque the entirety of his 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). 

17. Instead, Petro Mechanical paid Roque overtime based upon a rate that was less 

than his regular rate of pay. 

18. In other words, Petro Mechanical paid Roque for of his overtime hours at a rate 

less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was in employed in violation of 

the FLSA. 

19. Petro Mechanical knew or reasonably should have known that Roque was not 

exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. 

20. During Roque’s employment with Petro Mechanical, he was engaged in 

commerce or the production of goods for commerce. 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 10
- 5 - 

21. During Roque’s employment with Petro Mechanical, the company had 

employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or had employees 

handling, selling or otherwise working on goods or materials that had been moved in or 

produced for commerce by others. 

22. During Roque’s employment with Petro Mechanical, the company had an 

annual gross volume of sales made or business done of at least $500,000. 

23. Petro Mechanical failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Roque as 

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

24. Petro Mechanical knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay 

practices violated the FLSA. 

25. Petro Mechanical is liable to Roque’s for his unpaid overtime wages, liquidated 

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

26. All welders employed by Petro Mechanical that were subject to this pay policy 

are similarly situated to Roque because they (1) were subject to the same uniform pay policy 

or practice; (2) were in traditionally non-exempt positions; (3) regularly worked in excess of 

forty hours per week; (4) are not paid the entirety of their overtime for the hours they work 

in excess of forty per week as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) and (5) 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). 

 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 10
- 6 - 

V. Count One— 

Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a) 

27. Roque adopts by reference all of the facts set forth above. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

10(c). 

28. During Roque’s employment with Petro Mechanical, he was a nonexempt 

employee. 

29. As a nonexempt employee, Petro Mechanical was legally obligated to pay Roque 

“at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [he was] employed[]” 

for the hours that he worked over forty in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

30. Petro Mechanical did not pay Roque the entirety of his overtime as required by 

29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) for the hours he worked in excess of forty per week. 

31. Instead, Petro Mechanical paid Roque overtime based upon a rate that was less 

than his regular rate of pay. 

32. In other words, Petro Mechanical paid Roque for of his overtime hours at a rate 

less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was in employed in violation of 

the FLSA. 

33. If Petro Mechanical classified Roque as exempt from the overtime requirements 

of the FLSA, he was misclassified because no exemption excuses the company’s noncompliance 

with the overtime requirements of the FLSA. 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 6 of 10
- 7 - 

34. Petro Mechanical knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay 

practices violated the overtime requirements of the FLSA; in other words, Petro Mechanical 

willfully violated the overtime requirements of the FLSA. 

VI. Count Two— 

Failure to Maintain Accurate Records in Violation of 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) 

35. Petro Mechanical adopts by reference all of the facts set forth above. See, Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 10(c). 

36. The FLSA requires employers to keep accurate records of hours worked by and 

wages paid to nonexempt employees. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c); 29 C.F.R. pt. 516. 

37. In addition to the pay violations of the FLSA described above, Petro 

Mechanical also failed to keep proper time and pay records as required by the FLSA. 

VII. Count Three— 

Collective Action Allegations 

38. Roque adopts by reference all of the facts set forth above. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

10(c). 

39. On information and belief, other employees have been victimized by Petro 

Mechanical’s violations of the FLSA identified above. 

40. These employees are similarly situated to Roque because, during the relevant 

time period, they were subject to the same pay practice or policy, were in traditionally 

nonexempt positions, and were compensated in a similar manner and were denied overtime 

wages at one and one-half times their regular rates for hours worked over forty in a workweek. 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 7 of 10
- 8 - 

41. Petro Mechanical’s policy or practice of failing to pay the entirety of their 

employees’ overtime compensation is a generally applicable policy or practice and does not 

depend on the personal circumstances or position of the putative class members. 

42. Since, on information and belief, Roque’s experiences are typical of the 

experiences of the putative class members, collective action treatment is appropriate. 

43. All employees of Petro Mechanical, regardless of their rates of pay, who were 

paid at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rates at which they were employed 

for all the hours that they worked over forty in a workweek are similarly situated. Although 

the issue of damages may be individual in character, there is no detraction from the common 

nucleus of liability facts. The class is therefore properly defined as: 

All welders employed for Petro Mechanical Service 

within the last three years. 

44. Petro Mechanical is liable to Roque and the members of the putative class for 

the difference between what it actually paid them and what it was legally obligated to pay 

them. 

45. Because Petro Mechanical knew and/or showed a reckless disregard for whether 

its pay practices violated the FLSA, the company owes Roque and the members of the putative 

class their unpaid overtime wages for at least the last three years. 

46. Petro Mechanical is liable to Roque and the members of the putative class in an 

amount equal to their unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages. 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 8 of 10
- 9 - 

47. Petro Mechanical is liable to Roque and the members of the putative classes for 

their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

48. Roque has retained counsel who are well versed in FLSA collective action 

litigation and who are prepared to litigate this matter vigorously on behalf of him and all other 

putative class members. 

VIII. Prayer 

49. Roque prays for the following relief: 

a. an order allowing this action to proceed as a collective action under 29 U.S.C 

§ 216(b); 

b. judgment awarding Roque and the members of the putative class all unpaid 

overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs; 

c. postjudgment interest at the applicable rate; 

d. incentive awards for any class representative(s); and 

e. all such other and further relief to which Roque and the putative class may 

show themselves to be justly entitled. 

 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 9 of 10
- 10 - 

Respectfully submitted, 

MOORE & ASSOCIATES

By: 

Melissa Moore 

State Bar No. 24013189 

Curt Hesse 

State Bar No. 24065414 

Lyric Center 

440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 222-6775 

Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 7:20-cv-00087-DC Document 1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 10 of 10