____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Western District of Texas 

Midland Division

Dean Keating, individually and on 

behalf of all those similarly situated 

Plaintiffs, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ CA No: 7:20-cv-122

v. §

§ 

Flowco Production Solutions, LLC

Defendant 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Collective Action and Class Action 

Jury Demanded 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Dean Keating (“Keating” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly against Flowco Production Solutions, LLC (“Defendant”) 

and in support shows the Court the following: 

1. Nature of Suit. 

1.1. This is an opt-in collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq. (“FLSA”). This is also a class action brought 

pursuant to the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (“NMMWA”), N.M. Stat. 

Ann. § 50-4-19, et seq. 

1.2. Defendant employed Plaintiff and other Class Members as Gas Lift Field 

Technicians whose primary job duties involved manual labor tasks in the oil field. 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 1 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 2 

2. Parties. 

2.1. Keating worked for Defendant in Texas and New Mexico in the three years 

preceding the filing of this case. Keating’s consent to participate is being filed 

with the Court. 

2.2. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those technicians similarly 

situated pursuant to the FLSA (“Class Members” or “Field Technicians”). The 

Class Members consist of Defendant’s current and former Field Technicians 

who were paid on a salary basis and a day rate who worked more than 40 hours in 

one or more workweek over the previous three years but were not paid overtime. 

2.3. Defendant is a Texas limited liability company, licensed to do business in the 

State of Texas. Defendant’s registered agent for service of process in Texas is 

Stuart E. Harlow, 2731 Spring Stuebner, Ste. N, Spring, TX 77389. 

3. Jurisdiction and Venue. 

3.1. Venue of this action is proper in this district and division because Defendant 

maintains an office in this District. Venue exists in the judicial district pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

3.2. Defendant carries on substantial business in the Western District of Texas and 

has sufficient minimum contacts with this state to be subject to this Court’s 

jurisdiction. 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 2 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 3 

3.3. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the district court’s 

federal question jurisdiction as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Specifically, this 

case is brought pursuant to the FLSA. 

3.4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

4. Coverage. 

4.1. At all material times, Defendant has acted, directly or indirectly, in the interest 

of an employer with respect to Plaintiff and the Class Members. 

4.2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been an employer within the 

meaning of the Section 3(d) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d). 

4.3. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been an enterprise with the 

meaning of Section 3(r) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(r). 

4.4. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant has been an enterprise engaged in 

commerce or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 

Section 3(s)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1), in that Defendant has had 

employees engaging in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, 

or employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that 

have been moved in or produced for commerce for any person and Defendant has 

had and has an annual gross volume of sales made or business done of not less 

than $500,000 (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 4 

stated). Plaintiffs and the Class Members specifically handled and used materials 

that traveled in interstate commerce, including oil and gas drilling equipment. 

4.5. Defendant is a national oil and gas services company. 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: 

4.5.1. computers and telecommunications equipment that has been 

manufactured and shipped across state lines; 

4.5.2. office equipment, such as copiers, that has been manufactured and 

shipped across state lines; 

4.5.3. the interstate telephone systems, landline and cellular, to recruit and 

employ individuals for operational positions; 

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

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

4.6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff and the Class Members were 

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

commerce as required by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1). 

5. Factual Allegations.

5.1. Defendant provides a service to the oil and gas industry providing well 

deliquification and production optimization for oil and gas producers. 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 4 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 5 

5.2. Defendant provides services to oil and gas wells and drilling sites that 

incorporate and use equipment and material that have traveled in interstate 

commerce. 

5.3. Defendant has offices, equipment yards and service oil and gas wells at various 

locations around the United States (each a “Location” and collectively the 

“Locations”). 

5.4. Plaintiff worked for Defendant and reported to its Midland, Texas Location. 

Plaintiff was assigned to perform duties at oil and gas wells in Texas and New 

Mexico. Some of the Class Members were assigned to locations in Texas, 

Colorado, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. 

5.5. During the Relevant Period, Plaintiff’s job responsibilities consisted of manual 

labor tasks in the form of installing gas lift valves in the work string on production 

and competition rigs at Defendant’s Locations. 

5.6. Plaintiff’s job responsibilities also consisted of transporting equipment from the 

shop to the pulling units or service rigs. 

5.7. Plaintiff was also responsible for various other non-discretionary tasks. These 

other non-discretionary tasks Plaintiff performed were routine and did not 

require the exercise of independent judgment or discretion. 

5.8. Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were paid a salary and a day rate. 

5.9. This lawsuit covers the period of time Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members 

were treated as exempt employees for purposes of the FLSA and the state laws 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 5 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 6 

and were not paid time and one-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in 

excess of 40 hours in a work week (the “Relevant Period”). 

5.10. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members routinely worked more than 40 

hours in a work week during the Relevant Period. Plaintiffs and the Putative 

Class Members worked 7 days a week for weeks at a time. Plaintiff and the 

Putative Class Members worked at least 12 hours per day and on many days more 

hours than 12. 

5.11.During a typical week during the Relevant Period, Plaintiff and the Putative Class 

Members would work at least 84 hours and oftentimes many more. 

5.12. Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out 

their illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with 

respect to Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members. 

5.13. The FLSA requires employers to keep accurate time records of hours 

worked by nonexempt employees. 29 U.S.C. § 211 (c). 

5.14. In addition to the pay violations of the FLSA identified above, Defendant 

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

6. Class and Collective Action Allegations 

6.1. The Plaintiff brings this action as a FED. R. CIV. P. 23 class action, on behalf of 

himself and on behalf of a Class for which the he seeks certification. Pending 

any modifications necessitated by discovery, the Plaintiff preliminarily defines 

this Class as follows: 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 6 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 7 

All Field Technicians (referred to by Defendant as Gas Lift 

Field Technicians), of Defendant who were paid an annual 

amount and/or day rate and no overtime and who worked 

more than 40 hours in one or more individual workweeks in 

the state of New Mexico. 

6.1.1.This action is properly brought as a class action for the following reasons: 

6.1.1.1. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all Class Members is 

impracticable. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that the number 

of Class Members exceeds forty. 

6.1.1.2. Numerous questions of law and fact regarding the liability of 

Defendants are common to the Class and predominate over any 

individual issues which may exist. 

6.1.1.3. The claims asserted by the Plaintiff are typical of the claims of 

Class Members and the Class is readily ascertainable from 

Defendants’ own records. A class action is superior to other available 

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 

6.1.1.4. The Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

Class Members. The interests of Class Members are coincident with, 

and not antagonistic to, those of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff is 

represented by experienced class action counsel. 

6.2. Plaintiff also 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 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 7 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 8 

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. 

6.2.1. Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiff 

preliminarily defines this Collective as follows: 

All nationwide Field Technicians (referred to by Defendant 

as Gas Lift Field Technicians) of Defendant who were paid an 

annual amount and/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. 

6.2.2. Plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the experiences of the Collective 

Members. 

6.2.3. The specific job titles or precise job locations of the various Collective 

Members do not prevent class or collective treatment. 

6.3. It is the policy of Defendant not to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and the Field 

Technicians. 

6.4. Defendant does not pay overtime because Defendant has a policy of classifying 

each Field Technician as an exempt employee under the FLSA. Such policy 

applies to Plaintiff and all Field Technicians. 

6.5. Thus, other employees have been victimized by this pattern, practice, and policy 

which is in willful violation of the FLSA. 

6.6. The Class Members do not qualify for any exemption and performed job duties 

typically associated with non-exempt employees. Their duties were routine and 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 8 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 9 

did not require the exercise of independent judgment or discretion. Moreover, 

these employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and were 

not paid one-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours 

in a work week. 

6.7. Accordingly, the employees victimized by Defendant’s unlawful pattern and 

practices are similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of job duties and pay 

provisions. 

6.8. Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation at the rates required by the 

FLSA is based on Defendant’s generally applicable policy of classifying each 

Field Technician as an exempt does not depend on the personal circumstances 

of the Class Members. Thus, Plaintiffs’ experiences are typical of the experience 

of the Class Members. 

6.9. The specific job titles, precise job requirements or job locations of the various 

Class Members do not prevent collective treatment. All Class Members, 

regardless of their work location, precise job requirements or rates of pay, are 

entitled to be paid the minimum wage and/or overtime compensation for hours 

worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Although the issue of damages may be 

individual in character, there is no detraction from the common nucleus of 

liability facts. The questions of law and fact are common to Plaintiffs and the 

Class Members. 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 9 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 10 

7. First Claim for Relief: Failure to Pay Wages in Accordance with the Fair Labor 

Standards Act. 

7.1. Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs 1-6, inclusive, is 

re-alleged as if fully rewritten herein. 

7.2. During the relevant time period, Defendant violated and continues to violate the 

provisions of section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C § 207, and 215(a)(2), by employing 

employees in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods 

for commerce within the meaning of the FLSA for weeks longer than 40 hours 

without compensating for work in excess of 40 hours per week at rates no less 

than one-and-a-half times their regular rates of pay. Defendant has acted willfully 

in failing to pay Plaintiff and the Collective Members in accordance with the law. 

8. Second Claim for Relief: – Individual and Class Action Cause of Action: Failure 

to Pay Wages in Accordance with the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act 

(“NMMWA”), N.M. Stat. Ann. § 50-4-19, et seq. 

8.1. Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs 1-6, inclusive, is 

re-alleged as if fully rewritten herein. 

8.2. During their employment, Plaintiff and the Class Members were “employees” 

of Defendant as defined by the NMMWA in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 50-4-21(c). 

8.3. During their employment, Defendant was Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ 

“employer” as defined by the NMMWA in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 50-4-21(b). 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 10 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 11 

8.4. This count arises from Defendant’s violations of the NMMWA by failing to pay 

overtime to Plaintiff and the Class Members when they worked over 40 hours in 

individual workweeks in New Mexico. 

8.5. Defendant classified Plaintiff and the Class Members as exempt from the 

overtime provisions of the NMMWA. 

8.6. Plaintiff and the Class Members were not exempt from the overtime provisions 

of the NMMWA. 

8.7. Plaintiff and the Class Members were regularly directed to work by Defendant, 

and did work, over 40 hours in individual workweeks. 

8.8. Defendant violated the NMMWA by failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class 

Members overtime at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay when they 

worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks. 

8.9. Defendant has acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class Members in 

accordance with the law. 

9. Jury Demand. 

9.1. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury herein. 

10. Relief Sought. 

10.1. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that he and 

all those who consent to be opt-in plaintiffs in this collective action recover from 

Defendant, the following: 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 11 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 12 

10.1.1. Determining that the action is properly maintained as a class action 

under FRCP 23, certifying Plaintiff as the class representative, and 

appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the Class Members; 

10.1.2. An Order recognizing this proceeding as a collective action pursuant to 

Section 216(b) of the FLSA and appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to 

represent the Collective Members; 

10.1.3. An Order requiring Defendant to provide the names, addresses, email 

addresses and telephone numbers of all potential Class/Collective 

Members; 

10.1.4. An Order approving the form and content of a notice to be sent to all 

potential Class/Collective Members advising them of the pendency of this 

litigation and of their rights with respect thereto; 

10.1.5. Overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of forty 

hours in any workweek at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular 

rates; 

10.1.6. All unpaid wages and overtime compensation for Plaintiff and the Class 

Members as required by the NMMWA plus an additional amount equal to 

twice the unpaid wages as penalties under the NMMWA (N.M.S.A.1978, § 

50–4–26(C)); 

Case 7:20-cv-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 12 of 13
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 13 

10.1.7. An award of liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216 as a result of 

the Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation pursuant to the 

FLSA; 

10.1.8. Reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, costs, and expenses of this action 

as provided by the FLSA; 

10.1.9. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by 

law; and 

10.1.10. Such other relief as to which Plaintiff may be entitled. 

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-00122 Document 1 Filed 05/18/20 Page 13 of 13