UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND DIVISION 

YORDANIS PENA, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

E.C. ROUSTABOUT SERVICE, INC.,

ERNESTO CARDENAS

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

No. ___________________ 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

COMES NOW Plaintiff Yordanis Pena (referred to as “Pena” or “Plaintiff”) bringing 

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

to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendants E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. and Ernesto 

Cardenas (collectively referred to as “E.C. Roustabout” or “Defendants”). In support thereof, 

they would respectfully show the Court as follows: 

I. Nature of Suit

1. Plaintiff’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 

7:20-cv-00137

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 10
- 2 - 

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

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. Defendants violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiff 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. Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay 

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

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

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

themselves 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 the Defendants reside in the Midland Division of the Western District 

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

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

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 10
- 3 - 

III. Parties 

8. Plaintiff Yordanis Pena is an individual who resides in Big Lake, Texas and who 

was employed by Defendants during the last three years. 

9. Defendant E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. is a Texas corporation that may be 

served with process by serving its registered agent: 

Ernesto Cardenas 

1210 1st Street 

Big Lake, Texas 76932 

Alternatively, if the registered agent of E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. cannot with reasonable 

diligence be found at the company’s registered office, E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. 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. Defendant Ernesto Cardenas is an individual that may be served with process 

at: 

Ernesto Cardenas 

1210 1st Street 

Big Lake, Texas 76932 

Alternatively, Ernesto Cardenas may be served with process pursuant to the TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE § 17.021 by serving an agent or clerk employed at his office or place of business 

because this action grows out of or is connected with the business he transacts in this state. 

11. Whenever it is alleged that Defendants committed any act or omission, it is 

meant that the Defendants’ 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 

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 10
- 4 - 

was done with the full authorization, ratification or approval of Defendants 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 

12. E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. is an oilfield services company; it does business 

in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 

13. Ernesto Cardenas is the president of E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. 

14. E.C. Roustabout does business in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 

15. E.C. Roustabout employed Pena as a pusher/laborer from approximately 

February 2017 through May 2020. 

16. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, they were engaged in 

commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. 

17. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, the company was an enterprise 

engaged in commerce because it (1) 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 and (2) had an annual 

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

18. Defendants paid Plaintiff on an hourly basis. 

19. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, he regularly worked in excess 

of forty hours per week. 

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 4 of 10
- 5 - 

20. Defendants, though, did not pay Plaintiff for all of the hours that he worked, 

and it did not count all of the hours that Plaintiff worked towards its obligation to pay 

overtime. 

21. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff worked in 

excess of forty hours per week. 

22. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime as required by 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) 

for the hours they worked in excess of forty per week. 

23. Instead, Defendants failed to pay for all of the hours that Plaintiff worked and 

to count all of the hours that Plaintiff worked towards its obligation to pay overtime. 

24. In other words, Defendants paid Plaintiff for fewer hours—both regular hours 

and overtime hours—than he actually worked. 

25. Additionally, when it did pay overtime, Defendants paid Plaintiff at a reduced 

hourly rate (in other words, at a straight-time rate). 

26. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiff was not 

exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. 

27. Defendants failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and 

other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). 

28. Defendants knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay practices 

violated the FLSA. 

29. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for his unpaid overtime wages, related 

damages and penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 5 of 10
- 6 - 

30. All pushers and laborers employed by Defendants are similarly situated to 

Plaintiff because they (1) have similar job duties; (2) regularly work in excess of forty hours 

per week; (3) are not paid overtime for the hours they worked 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 Defendants pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

216(b). 

V. Count One— 

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

31. Plaintiff adopts by reference all of the facts set forth above. See, FED. R. CIV.

P. 10(c). 

32. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, he was a nonexempt 

employee. 

33. As a nonexempt employee, E.C. Roustabout was legally obligated to pay 

Plaintiff “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they were] 

employed[]” for the hours that they worked over forty in a workweek. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 

34. E.C. Roustabout did not pay Plaintiff overtime as required by 29 U.S.C. § 

207(a)(1) for the hours he worked in excess of forty (40) per week. 

35. Instead, E.C. Roustabout collectively paid Plaintiff at a reduced straight time 

rate, for forty (40) hours each week, regardless of the number of hours he worked. 

36. In other words, E.C. Roustabout did not pay Plaintiff for any hours worked in 

excess of forty (40) each week in violation of the FLSA. 

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 6 of 10
- 7 - 

37. If E.C. Roustabout classified Plaintiff 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. 

38. E.C. Roustabout knew or showed a reckless disregard for whether its pay 

practices violated the overtime requirements of the FLSA; in other words, E.C. Roustabout 

willfully violated the overtime requirements of the FLSA. 

VI. Count Two— 

Collective Action Allegations 

39. Plaintiff adopts by reference all of the facts set forth above. See, FED. R. CIV.

P. 10(c). 

40. On information and belief, other employees have been victimized by E.C. 

Roustabout violations of the FLSA identified above. 

41. These employees are similarly situated to Plaintiff because, during the relevant 

time period, they were subject to the same pay practice or policy, was in a traditionally nonexempt position, and were compensated in a similar manner and were denied overtime wages 

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

42. E.C. Roustabout’s policy or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation is 

a generally applicable policy or practice and does not depend on the personal circumstances of 

the putative class members. 

43. Since, on information and belief, Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the 

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

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 7 of 10
- 8 - 

44. All non-exempt employees employed by E.C. Roustabout, 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 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 hourly, non-exempt employees, regardless of position, employed by 

E.C. Roustabout Service, Inc. during the last three years. 

45. E.C. Roustabout is liable to Plaintiff 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. 

46. Because E.C. Roustabout knew and/or showed a reckless disregard for whether 

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

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

47. E.C. Roustabout is liable to Plaintiff and the members of the putative class in 

an amount equal to their unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages. 

48. E.C. Roustabout is liable to Plaintiff and the members of the putative classes 

for their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 

49. Plaintiff has retained counsel who are well versed in FLSA collective action 

litigation and who are prepared to litigate this matter vigorously on their behalf as well as all 

other putative class members. 

 

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 8 of 10
- 9 - 

VIII. Prayer 

50. Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff and the members of the putative class all 

unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and 

costs; 

c. prejudgment interest at the applicable rate; 

d. postjudgment interest at the applicable rate; 

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

f. all such other and further relief to which Plaintiff and the putative class may 

show themselves to be justly entitled. 

 

Case 7:20-cv-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 9 of 10
- 10 - 

Respectfully submitted, 

MOORE & ASSOCIATES

By: 

Melissa Moore 

State Bar No. 24013189 

Federal Id. No. 25122 

Curt Hesse 

State Bar No. 24065414 

Federal Id. No. 968465 

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-00137-DC-RCG Document 1 Filed 05/28/20 Page 10 of 10