IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

JUSTIN GARZA, Individually and on §

Behalf of Others Similarly Situated

Plaintiff,

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-0361

FREEDOM OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC,

ROBERT E. MOSLEY, JR., MATTHEW

M. EVANS, JAMES D. BARRON, 

SAMUEL HESTER, and DONALD LEE

GLOVER,

Defendants. § JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

Summary of Lawsuit

Defendant Freedom Oilfield Services, LLC (“Freedom” or “Defendant”) has a business 

plan that includes improperly calculating the proper overtime pay rate of non-exempt hourly 

employees, resulting in a significant underpayment of the employees. Freedom’s failure to pay 

the full overtime premium required by law allows it to gain an unfair advantage over competitors 

who follow the law in their employment practices. Plaintiff Justin Garza (“Garza” or “Plaintiff”)

is one of the workers hired by Freedom as an hourly employee and not paid proper overtime pay,

and brings this lawsuit against Freedom on his own behalf and on behalf of his co-workers to 

recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Facts Supporting Relief

Allegations Related to Garza’s and His Co-Workers’ Claims

1. Garza worked for Freedom as a pressure control operator from 2016 until 

February of 2020. Garza’s duties included, but were not limited to, general labor, rigging up and 

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 9
2

rigging down equipment at oil & gas wells, working on equipment at well sites, and maintaining

and pressure washing equipment at Freedom’s yard.

2. During the time he worked for Freedom, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 

40 hours per week. 

3. Freedom paid Garza on an hourly basis. When Garza worked in the field, 

Freedom paid Garza a set, non-discretionary amount of money, called a “job bonus,” for each 

day he worked in the field. Freedom did not factor in the non-discretionary job bonus pay when 

calculating Garza’s overtime pay rate, and thus did not pay Garza the correct overtime premium 

overtime hours that he worked in the field. Instead, Garza was paid overtime pay based on his 

lower base hourly rate.

4. Garza worked with numerous other individuals who were paid on an hourly basis 

with a daily job bonus for working in the field. These individuals also regularly worked over 40 

hours per week, and they were also not paid the proper overtime pay rate for weeks in which 

they worked in the field. Instead, the Defendant also paid these other individuals overtime based

on their lower base hourly rate.

Allegations Regarding FLSA Coverage of Freedom

5. Freedom is a Louisiana limited liability company that is covered by and subject to 

the overtime requirements of the FLSA.

6. During each of the three years prior to this complaint being filed, Freedom was an 

enterprise engaged in interstate commerce, operating on interstate highways, purchasing 

materials through commerce, transporting materials through commerce and on the interstate 

highways, conducting transactions through commerce, including the use of credit cards, phones 

and/or cell phones, electronic mail and the Internet. 

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 9
3

7. During each of the three years prior to this complaint being filed, Freedom

regularly owned and operated businesses 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) and 203(s). 

8. During each of the three years prior to this complaint being filed, Freedom

conducted sufficient business to exceed an annual gross volume of sales of at least $500,000

(exclusive of excise taxes) based upon the volume of business.

9. During each of the three years prior to this complaint being filed, Freedom’s

employees used goods, tools, equipment or materials that traveled in interstate commerce; that is, 

goods, tools, equipment or materials that were grown, made or manufactured outside the state of

Texas.

Individual Defendants

10. Robert E. Mosley, Jr. (“Mosley”) was at all relevant times an owner, a member

and/or a manager of Freedom.

11. Mosley was at all relevant times involved in and had operational control over the 

day-to-day operations of Freedom. 

12. At all relevant times, Mosley had the power to hire and fire Freedom employees.

13. At all relevant times, Mosley was involved in determining wages and other 

compensation of Freedom employees, and in setting employee compensation policies.

14. Along with the other owners, members and managers of Freedom, Mosley

exercised control over the manner in which Garza and his co-workers were paid.

15. Matthew M. Evans (“Evans”) was at all relevant times an owner, a member

and/or a manager of Freedom.

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 9
4

16. Evans was at all relevant times involved in and had operational control over the 

day-to-day operations of Freedom. 

17. At all relevant times, Evans had the power to hire and fire Freedom employees.

18. At all relevant times, Evans was involved in determining wages and other 

compensation of Freedom employees, and in setting employee compensation policies.

19. Along with the other owners, members and managers of Freedom, Evans 

exercised control over the manner in which Garza and his co-workers were paid.

20. James D. Barron (“Barron”) was at all relevant times an owner, a member and/or 

a manager of Freedom.

21. Barron was at all relevant times involved in and had operational control over the 

day-to-day operations of Freedom. 

22. At all relevant times, Barron had the power to hire and fire Freedom employees.

23. At all relevant times, Barron was involved in determining wages and other 

compensation of Freedom employees, and in setting employee compensation policies.

24. Along with the other owners, members and managers of Freedom, Barron 

exercised control over the manner in which Garza and his co-workers were paid.

25. Samuel Hester (“Hester”) was at all relevant times an owner, a member and/or a 

manager of Freedom.

26. Hester was at all relevant times involved in and had operational control over the 

day-to-day operations of Freedom. 

27. At all relevant times, Hester had the power to hire and fire Freedom employees.

28. At all relevant times, Hester was involved in determining wages and other 

compensation of Freedom employees, and in setting employee compensation policies.

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 9
5

29. Along with the other owners, members and managers of Freedom, Hester 

exercised control over the manner in which Garza and his co-workers were paid.

30. Donald Lee Glover (“Glover”) was at all relevant times an owner, a member

and/or a manager of Freedom.

31. Glover was at all relevant times involved in and had operational control over the 

day-to-day operations of Freedom. 

32. At all relevant times, Glover had the power to hire and fire Freedom employees.

33. At all relevant times, Glover was involved in determining wages and other 

compensation of Freedom employees, and in setting employee compensation policies.

34. Along with the other owners, members and managers of Freedom, Glover 

exercised control over the manner in which Garza and his co-workers were paid.

35. Defendants Mosley, Evans, Barron, Hester, and Glover (“Control Persons”)

determined that hourly field works such as Garza should be paid a non-discretionary job bonus 

and that this pay would not be factored into the workers’ overtime pay. This decision was made 

and continued despite Freedom and the Control Persons having been previously sued in an 

overtime case filed on behalf of other Freedom oilfield workers who were paid a job bonus that 

should have been factored into the workers’ effective hourly rate.

Plaintiff’s Claims

36. Freedom was legally required to pay Garza and his similarly situated hourly coworkers who were paid a daily non-discretionary job bonus (“Members of the Class”) overtime 

pay for all hours that these individuals worked for Freedom in excess of 40 in any workweek. 

37. Garza worked over 40 hours in many workweeks that he worked for Freedom.

38. Members of the Class worked over 40 hours in many workweeks that they

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 9
6

worked for Freedom.

39. Freedom did not pay Garza the proper overtime rate for any of the overtime hours

that he worked in the field for Freedom. Freedom’s underpayment of the Plaintiff, often referred 

to as “wage theft,” allowed Freedom to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace as compared 

to other oilfield service businesses that pay their employees all of the money required by law.

40. Freedom and the Control Persons knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard 

carried out their illegal pattern or practice regarding overtime compensation with respect to

Garza and Members of the Class. Such practice was and continues to be with regard to the 

Members of the Class, a clear violation of the FLSA.

Cause of Action

Violation of the FLSA – Failure to Pay Overtime Wages Owed

41. Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Garza proper overtime pay for 

hours worked over 40 per workweek.

41. Garza has suffered damages as a direct result of Defendants’ illegal actions.

43. Defendants are liable to Garza for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated 

damages, attorney’s fees and costs of Court under the FLSA, for the three-year period preceding

the filing of this lawsuit.

Collective Action Allegations

44. The Defendants’ failure to pay their employees as required by the FLSA resulted

from a generally applicable policy that does not depend on the personal circumstances of the 

Members of the Class; that is, not factoring employees’ non-discretionary job bonuses into their 

pay rate. This generally applicable policy is prohibited by the FLSA. Thus, Garza’s experience 

is typical of the experiences of the Members of the Class.

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 9
7

45. The class of similarly situated Plaintiffs is properly defined as:

All hourly field workers who are/were employed by and paid

on an hourly basis by Freedom Oilfield Services, LLC and who 

were paid a daily job bonus for days worked in the field during 

the three-year period preceding the filing of this Complaint.

Defendants, Jurisdiction, and Venue

46. Defendant Freedom Oilfield Services, LLC is a Louisiana limited liability 

company and an “employer” as defined by the FLSA. Defendant may be served through its 

registered agent, CT Corporation Systems at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-

3136.

47. Defendant Robert E. Mosley, Jr. is an individual residing in the state of Louisiana. 

He may be served with process at 2948 Hwy. 80, Haughton, LA, 71037 or at 325 Remco Drive, 

Haughton, LA 71037, or wherever he may be found.

48. Defendant Matthew M. Evans is an individual residing in the state of Louisiana. 

He may be served with process at 6475 Sand Hill Ave., Shreveport, LA 71107, or at 325 Remco 

Drive, Haughton, LA 71037, or wherever he may be found.

49. Defendant James D. Barron is an individual residing in the state of Louisiana. He 

may be served with process at 9255 Ellerbe Rd., #9, Shreveport, LA 71106, or at 325 Remco 

Drive, Haughton, LA 71037, or wherever he may be found.

50. Defendant Samuel Hester is an individual residing in the state of Louisiana. He 

may be served with process at 10349 Keysburg Ct., Shreveport, LA 71106, or at 325 Remco 

Drive, Haughton, LA 71037, or wherever he may be found.

51. Defendant Donald Lee Glover is an individual residing in the state of Louisiana. 

He may be served with process at 1360 Palmetto Rd., Benton, LA 71006, or at 325 Remco 

Drive, Haughton, LA 71037, or wherever he may be found.

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 9
8

52. This Court has federal question jurisdiction under the FLSA, and venue is proper 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as Defendants and Plaintiff transacted business within this 

judicial district, and the events underlying this complaint occurred within this judicial district as

well. 

Demand for Jury

53. Garza demands a trial by jury.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and all employees similarly situated who join in this action

demand:

1. Issuance of notice as soon as possible to all hourly field employees of Freedom 

Oilfield Services, LLC who were paid a non-discretionary job bonus during the 

three-year period immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint. Generally,

this notice should inform them that this action has been filed, describe the nature of 

the action, and explain their right to opt into this lawsuit if they were not paid 

correctly for work performed or hours worked during any portion of the statutory 

period;

2. Judgment against Defendants for an amount equal to Plaintiff’s and the Members 

of the Class’s unpaid overtime wages at the applicable rate;

3. An equal amount to the overtime wage damages as liquidated damages;

4. Judgment against Defendants that their violations of the FLSA were willful;

5. To the extent that liquidated damages are not awarded, an award of prejudgment

interest;

6. All costs and attorney’s fees incurred prosecuting these claims;

7. Leave to add additional Plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent forms, or 

any other method approved by the Court; and

8. For such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE BUENKER LAW FIRM

/s/ Josef F. Buenker 

Josef F. Buenker

TBA No. 03316860

jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

2060 North Loop West, Suite 215

Houston, Texas 77018

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 8 of 9
9

713-868-3388 Telephone 

713-683-9940 Facsimile 

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR

PLAINTIFF JUSTIN GARZA

OF COUNSEL:

Vijay Pattisapu

TBA No. 24083633

S.D. Tex. No. 1829615

vijay@buenkerlaw.com

THE BUENKER LAW FIRM

2060 North Loop West, Suite 215

Houston, Texas 77018

713-868-3388 Telephone 

713-683-9940 Facsimile 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

JUSTIN GARZA

Case 5:20-cv-00361-DAE Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 9 of 9