1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JOSE ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON 

BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY 

SITUATED;

 Plaintiff,

vs.

TRINIDAD DRILLING, LLC, 

TRINIDAD DRILLING, L.P.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00503-OLG

ORDER

Before the Court is the above-styled cause of action, which was referred to the 

undesigned for all pretrial proceedings [#29]. The record reflects that the Court granted in part 

Plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification on September 14, 2020 [#47], and conditionally 

certified a class of “all rig managers employed by [Defendants] anywhere in Texas, at any time 

from September 14, 2017 through the final disposition of this matter, and were paid a day rate 

but no overtime.” The Court ordered the parties to confer regarding the substance and method of 

notice to the class and tolled the statute of limitations for all potential opt-in Plaintiffs. 

The parties filed briefs on notice [#50, #51], as well as responses to the briefs [#54, #56],

and the Court held a telephonic hearing on October 22, 2020 to address the parties’ disputes, at 

which all parties appeared through counsel. At the hearing, the Court issued certain oral rulings, 

which it now memorials with this written Order. The following Order does not address the 

parties’ agreements as memorialized in their briefing, only their disagreements. 

The primary dispute between the parties is over the import of the recent case In re JP 

Morgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494, 501 (5th Cir. 2019), in which the Fifth Circuit held that a 

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 1 of 13
2

district court abused its discretion by ordering notice to employees who had signed arbitration 

agreements and thus were not potential participants of the FLSA collective action. Defendants 

believe there are between 50 and 65 rig managers of the 123 class members who signed binding 

arbitration agreements and therefore should not receive notice of this collective action per JP 

Morgan. Defendants therefore ask the Court for additional time to identify the class members 

who signed these agreements. Plaintiff argues that Defendants waived their argument under JP 

Morgan by failing to meet their burden to demonstrate that valid arbitration agreements exist at 

the time the Court conditionally certified the class, and that Defendants’ suggestion of a two-step 

process—certification and then an identification of any class members who agreed to arbitrate 

their dispute—was neither contemplated nor endorsed by the Fifth Circuit. 

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s waiver argument, as Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s 

motion for conditional certification raised JP Morgan and argued that notice should not issue to 

any class member who signed a valid arbitration agreement. (Resp. [#28] at 24.) Moreover, the 

Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s position that Defendants were required to identify valid 

arbitration agreements prior to the Court’s conditional certification order ruling on the scope of 

the class. Plaintiff’s certification motion sought certification of a class of “all oilfield workers.” 

The Court significantly narrowed the class and limited conditional certification to a class of “all 

rig managers.” Now that the class has been defined, Defendants can satisfy their burden to 

identify those rig managers who agreed to arbitrate their disputes. 

Finally, even if Defendants had failed to raise JP Morgan in their conditional certification 

briefing, the Court would be unlikely to embrace Plaintiff’s waiver argument. The Fifth Circuit 

was unequivocal in JP Morgan that “district courts may not send notice to an employee with a 

valid arbitration agreement unless the record shows that nothing in the agreement would prohibit 

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 13
3

that employee from participating in a collective action.” 916 F.3d at 501. Moreover, the Fifth 

Circuit expressly directed that district courts “should permit submission of additional evidence, 

carefully limited to the disputed facts, at the conditional-certification stage” Id. at 502. Plaintiff 

would have the Court interpret this directive as requiring that all disputes regarding notice be 

resolved at the same moment as the ruling on the scope of the class to receive that notice. The 

Court declines to adopt this approach, which does not align with the purpose of conditional 

certification, which is to promote efficient case management and resolution. Class certification 

and notice are both integral parts of “the conditional-certification stage” of FLSA collective 

action litigation. The Court will therefore permit Defendants additional time to provide Plaintiff 

with the arbitration agreements for the employees at issue and for Plaintiff to respond with any 

objections to the validity and the enforceability of the agreements. If “a preponderance of the 

evidence shows that the employee has entered into a valid arbitration agreement, it is error for a 

district court to order notice to be sent to that employee as part of any sort of certification.” Id. at 

503.

The parties’ other disputes concern specific objections to the language proposed in the 

notice. The Court reviewed the parties’ red-line copy of the notice at the hearing and resolved 

each dispute at issue. The Court will attach a clean copy of the approved notice to this Order as 

Exhibit A.

Additionally, the Court will approve Plaintiff’s request for notice by mail, email, and text 

message. Although the Court will permit a reminder notice via the same means, Plaintiff’s 

counsel will not be permitted to remind class members regarding the return of their consent 

forms by phone. 

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 3 of 13
4

Finally, the parties disagree as to how much information on each class member 

Defendants are required to provide to facilitate notice. Plaintiff seeks names, addresses, email 

addresses, phone numbers, dates of employment, dates of birth, and drivers’ license numbers for 

each class member. The Court will only require Defendants to produce the names, addresses, 

email addresses, and phone numbers in their possession for each class member. The certified 

class is not so large as to justify the production of the additional requested information, which 

Plaintiff conceded at the hearing is only necessary as additional identifying information where 

classes are so large that multiple employees have the same name. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants provide Plaintiff with all arbitration 

agreements signed by members of the certified class on or before October 30, 2020. Defendants 

may redact the names of the class members on the arbitration agreements as necessary to protect 

the employees’ identities. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants provide Plaintiff with the contact 

information for the remainder of the certified class members (name, address, phone number, and 

email address) on or before October 30, 2020.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file any objections to the validity and 

enforceability of the arbitration agreements on or before November 6, 2020.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may issue notice of this lawsuit by mail, 

email, and text message and may issue a reminder notice by the same means. Plaintiff may not 

contact class members by phone to remind them to respond to the notice. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties use the Court-approved notice form 

attached to this Order as Exhibit A in issuing notice in this case. 

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 4 of 13
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 28th day of October, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 5 of 13
EXHIBIT A

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 6 of 13
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JOSE ORTIZ, 

Individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

TRINIDAD DRILLING, LLC, and 

TRINIDAD DRILLING, L.P.,

 Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00503-

OLG-ESC

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COLLECTIVE ACTION 

PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b)

NOTICE OF COLLECTIVE ACTION LAWSUIT

TO: All Rig Managers employed by Trinidad Drilling, LLC and/or Trinidad Drilling, LP, 

anywhere in the state of Texas, at any time from September 14, 2017 through the final 

disposition of this matter, and who were paid a day date and no overtime. 

RE: Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit Against Trinidad Drilling, LLC and Trinidad Drilling, L.P. 

(collectively “Trinidad Drilling”).

DEADLINE TO FILE CONSENT FORM: _______________________________, 2020.1

1. Why Are You Getting This Notice?

You received this Notice because the Court in charge of this lawsuit has ordered this Notice be 

sent to persons who are identified by Trinidad Drilling, LLC, and/or Trinidad Drilling, LP in 

Texas as a current or former Rig Manager who was paid a day rate and no overtime (together, 

“Plaintiffs”) who worked for Trinidad Drilling at any time.

The Court has allowed or “certified” a collective action lawsuit that may affect you. This notice is 

intended to advise you of how your rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) may be 

affected by this lawsuit and describe how to participate in this lawsuit.

1 [REMOVE BEFORE SENDING] This date will be 60 days from the date the notice is mailed.

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 7 of 13
2

2. What Is This Lawsuit About?

Jose Ortiz filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself and other current and former Rig Managers who 

were paid a day rate and no overtime and who worked for Trinidad. The key dispute is whether 

Plaintiff Jose Ortiz and other Rig Managers are owed overtime pay for time they spent working 

over 40 hours in a workweek pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Plaintiff alleges that Trinidad Drilling did not pay him overtime for all hours worked over forty 

(40) hours in a workweek. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Trinidad Drilling misclassified him as 

exempt from overtime and paid him a day rate and no overtime. In addition to unpaid overtime 

pay, Plaintiff is seeking liquidated (double) damages equal to the overtime pay, as well as attorneys’ 

fees and costs. 

Trinidad contends that Plaintiff and all other Rig Managers were properly classified as exempt 

employees under the FLSA and, thus, were exempt from the overtime pay requirements. 

Accordingly, Trinidad contends that it properly paid Plaintiff and all other Rig Managers and that 

it does not owe any Rig Managers any additional pay. 

The Court has not decided who is right but has authorized this notice to inform you of your right 

to join this lawsuit. 

3. Are You Eligible to Join This Lawsuit?

You are eligible to join this lawsuit if (1) you were employed in Texas by Trinidad Drilling as a Rig 

Manager at any time from September 14, 2017 to the present; and (2) you were paid a day rate, 

but were not paid overtime. 

4. What Are Your Options?

If you meet the criteria for this lawsuit, you have a choice to assert your legal rights in this case if

you desire to do so. However, you are not required to do so and may choose to take no action

without consequence to you.

If you want to become a party to this case, you must read, sign, and return the attached Consent

to Join Wage Claim form by _______________________2, 2020. 

You may return your consent form by filling out the attached Consent form, mailing it to Plaintiff’s

attorneys at team@a2xlaw.com.

If you do not desire to join this lawsuit, then you need not sign or return the Consent form.

5. Effect of Joining or Not Joining the Lawsuit.

If you choose to join this lawsuit, then you will be bound by the judgment in this case, regardless 

of whether it is favorable or unfavorable to you. If you prevail, then you may receive back pay for 

2 [REMOVE BEFORE SENDING] This date will be 60 days after the Notice is mailed.

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 8 of 13
3

unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. If you do not prevail, then you will not 

receive back pay, liquidated damages, or attorneys’ fees. 

If you decide to join the lawsuit, you may be required to answer written questions, produce 

documents, appear for a deposition, and/or testify at trial in San Antonio, Texas with regard to 

your claims against Defendants.

Because of the statute of limitations, eligible workers who do not join this litigation or choose to 

file their own separate claims may lose any rights to recover overtime for work performed in the 

past for Defendants.

6. Retaliation Is Not Permitted.

Federal law prohibits employers from taking any adverse action against any person who has filed 

or joined an overtime lawsuit under the FLSA. If you believe you have been the victim of 

retaliation, please let us know or contact another attorney to discuss your rights.

7. Your Legal Representation If You Join.

If you choose to join this suit you may choose to hire your own attorney or you may agree to be 

represented by Plaintiff’s attorneys. 

If you complete and submit the enclosed Consent Form you will be represented by the law firm 

of ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC. Their contact information is listed below.

Plaintiff’s attorneys are advancing the expenses of the litigation. They are representing the Plaintiff 

on a contingency fee basis. No current or former Rig Manager who opts into the lawsuit will owe 

any attorneys’ fees unless the Plaintiff wins the lawsuit.

Plaintiff and his attorneys have agreed to a total attorneys’ fee of forty percent (40%) of the unpaid 

overtime pay and liquidated damages that you might be awarded as a result of the lawsuit. This 

percentage will be reduced by any award of attorneys’ fees received from the Court. 

In no event will any Rig Manager who returns the consent form in this lawsuit owe any fees or 

costs to the attorneys if no award of back wages or overtime is received.

8. How Can You Receive More Information?

 

If you have any questions about the collective action, your rights, or the claims being made in this 

lawsuit, you may contact Plaintiff’s attorneys directly at:

 

ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC

819 N. Upper Broadway 

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Telephone: (361) 452-1279

Fax: (361) 452-1284

team@a2xlaw.com

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 9 of 13
4

You should not contact the Court to discuss this matter.

9. You Have Sixty (60) Days to Join this Lawsuit.

Your determination of whether or not to take action should be made promptly. Because the law 

only allows a person to recover up to three (3) years of back wages from the date the Consent to 

Join Wage Claim form is filed, time is of the essence in submitting this form if you wish to have 

the opportunity to make a full recovery.

All Consent forms must be filed no later than __________________________, 2020, which is 

sixty (60) days after this Notice was mailed to you. A Consent form is enclosed with a selfaddressed stamped envelope.

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 10 of 13
5

CONSENT TO JOIN WAGE CLAIM AGAINST TRINIDAD 

Print Name: _________________________________________

1. I consent, agree, and opt-in to the lawsuit filed against Trinidad Drilling, LLC and Trinidad 

Drilling, L.P., (“Trinidad”) titled Jose Ortiz v. Trinidad Drilling, LLC, et al., No. 5:20-CV00503-OLG (W.D. Tex.) (“the Lawsuit”), to pursue my claims of unpaid overtime under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) during the time that I was employed by Trinidad.

2. I understand that the Lawsuit is brought under the FLSA, and I consent to be bound by 

the Court’s decision.

3. I designate the attorneys at the law firm of ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC as my 

attorneys to prosecute my wage claims in the Lawsuit and understand I will be bound by 

the fee agreement with Anderson Alexander, PLLC. The fee agreement is available upon 

request.

4. I consent to having the Representative Plaintiff in the complaint against Trinidad make all 

decisions regarding the litigation, the method and manner of conducting this litigation, the 

terms of any potential settlement of this litigation, releasing of claims, entering into an 

agreement with Plaintiff’s Counsel regarding attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other 

matters pertaining to this lawsuit.

5. If needed, I authorize the attorneys at the law firm of ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC to 

use this consent to re-file my claim in a separate lawsuit or arbitration against Trinidad 

Drilling.

Signature: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________

Please print or type the following information which will be kept confidential:

Address City/State/Zip

Home Telephone Number Cell Phone Number

E-mail Address Estimated Dates of Employment

Position(s) Held with Trinidad Drilling Location(s) Worked for Trinidad 

Drilling

RETURN THIS FORM BY MAIL, E-MAIL OR FAX TO: 

Overtime Lawsuit Against Trinidad Drilling

ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 11 of 13
6

819 N. Upper Broadway

Corpus Christi, Texas 78401

Fax: (361) 452-1284

team@a2xlaw.com

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 12 of 13
7

Subject: Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit Against Trinidad Drilling

Dear Current or Former Rig Manager of Trinidad Drilling, LLC and/or Trinidad Drilling, LP:

This law firm represents current and former Rig Managers who worked (or currently work) for 

Trinidad Drilling, LLC and/or Trinidad Drilling, LP in Texas at any time in the last 3 years in a 

lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages. Attached is the Court-authorized Notice 

regarding the lawsuit against Trinidad Drilling and Consent to Join form.

You are receiving this e-mail because Trinidad Drilling’s records indicate that you are eligible to 

participate in this lawsuit and your rights may be affected by its outcome. The attached Notice and 

Consent to Join explains the steps you need to take if you want to join the lawsuit and also if you do 

not want to join.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or my law firm at the number below or 

by responding to this email. Thank you.

Case 5:20-cv-00503-OLG-ESC Document 60 Filed 10/28/20 Page 13 of 13