____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Western District of Texas 

Midland Division

Juan Carlos Gaona, individually 

and on behalf of all those similarly 

situated 

Plaintiffs, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ CA No: 7:20-cv-144

v. §

§ 

Flowco Production Solutions, LLC

Defendant 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Collective Action and Class Action 

Jury Demanded 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Juan Carlos Gaona (“Gaona” or “Plaintiff”) brings this action individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated against Flowco Production Solutions, LLC 

(“Defendant”). 

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/Collective Members as hourlypaid workers in the oil field whose primary job duties involved manual labor tasks 

on the oil and gas rigs. 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 2 

1.3. Defendant paid overtime but did not consider non-discretionary bonuses in the 

calculation of the “regular rate.” This made the overtime rate artificially low. 

That violates the FLSA and the NMMWA. 

2. Parties. 

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

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

the Court. 

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

technicians similarly situated pursuant to the FLSA (“Oil Field Workers”). The 

Collective Members consist of Defendant’s current and former Oil Field 

Workers who were paid on an hourly-basis and a “job bonus” and who worked 

more than 40 hours in one or more workweek over the previous three years but 

were not paid overtime of 1 1⁄2 times a regular rate that included the job bonus. 

The Class Members consist of Defendant’s current and former Oil Field 

Workers employed in New Mexico who were paid on an hourly-basis and a “job 

bonus” and who worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweek but were 

not paid overtime of 1 1⁄2 times a regular rate that included the job bonus. 

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. 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 3 

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. 

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/Collective 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 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 4 

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 

stated). Plaintiffs and the Class/Collective 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. 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 5 

4.6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff and the Class/Collective 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 internal and 

external spooling services.

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 services 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, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado. Some of the 

Class/Collective Members were assigned to locations in Pennsylvania as well. 

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

manual labor tasks of running cap string (chemical line) and tech cable downhole 

and other spooling services in connection with oil and gas wells. 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 6 

5.6. 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. 

5.7. Plaintiff and the Putative Class/Collective Members were paid an hourly rate 

and a non-discretionary job bonus (the “Job Bonus”). 

5.8. The Job Bonus was $125 for every 12 hours worked on a cap string job and $350 

for every 12 hours worked on a Gauge job. 

5.9. When Plaintiff’s overtime rate was calculated, the “regular rate” from which 

the overtime rate was calculated, did not include the Job Bonus payments. Thus, 

the regular rate and the corresponding overtime rate were artificially low. 

5.10. Defendant is required to the Job Bonuses in calculating the “regular rate” 

it used to pay overtime to its employees. 29 U.S.C. §§ 207(a) & 207(e). 

5.11.Defendant’s policy of excluding the Job Bonuses from its employees’ regular 

rates (the “Overtime Miscalculation Policy”) violates the FLSA. 

5.12. The Overtime Miscalculation Policy also violates the NMMWA. 

5.13. Plaintiff is one of the many non—exempt, hourly employees who were 

denied proper overtime wages due to Defendant’s illegal Overtime 

Miscalculation Policy. 

5.14. He brings this collective and Class/Collective action to recover the 

unpaid overtime and related damages owed to Defendant’s workers. 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 7 

5.15. His lawsuit covers the period of time Defendant failed to include the Job 

Bonus in the calculation of the regular rate and the overtime rate of the Plaintiff 

and the Putative Class/Collective Members and thus 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”). 

5.16. Plaintiffs and the Putative Class/Collective Members routinely worked 

more than 40 hours in a work week during the Relevant Period. Plaintiffs and 

the Putative Class/Collective Members worked 7 days a week for weeks at a time. 

Plaintiff and the Putative Class/Collective Members worked at least 12 hours per 

day and on many days more hours than 12. 

5.17. During a typical week during the Relevant Period, Plaintiff and the 

Putative Class/Collective Members would work at least 84 hours and oftentimes 

many more. 

5.18. Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its 

illegal pattern or practice of applying the Overtime Miscalculation Policy to 

Plaintiff and the Putative Class/Collective Members. 

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-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 8 

All Oil Field Workers of Defendant who were paid an hourly 

rate and received a Job Bonus 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 

Defendant 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 

Defendant’s 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 

identical to those of other Collective Members. Plaintiff and Collective 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 9 

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 the application of the Overtime Miscalculation 

Policy. 

6.2.1. Pending any modifications necessitated by discovery, Plaintiff 

preliminarily defines this Collective as follows: 

All Oil Field Workers of Defendant who were paid an hourly 

rate and received a Job Bonus 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 collective treatment. 

6.3. When applying the Overtime Miscalculation Policy it is the policy of Defendant 

not to include the Job Bonus in the regular rate. 

6.4. The Overtime Miscalculation Policy applies to Plaintiff and all hourly-paid Oil 

Field Workers. 

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/Collective Members do not qualify for any exemption and performed 

job duties typically associated with non-exempt employees. Their duties were 

routine and did not require the exercise of independent judgment or discretion. 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 10 

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 Overtime Miscalculation 

Policy 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 Overtime Miscalculation 

Policy and does not depend on the personal circumstances of the 

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

experience of the Class/Collective Members. 

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

Class/Collective Members do not prevent collective treatment. All 

Class/Collective 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/Collective Members. 

6.10. The Class/Collective Members are easily ascertainable from Defendant’s 

business records, particularly its personnel records. 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 10 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 11 

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). 

8.4. This count arises from Defendant’s violations of the NMMWA by applying the 

Overtime Miscalculation Policy to pay overtime to Plaintiff and the Class 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 11 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 12 

Members when they worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks in New 

Mexico. 

8.5. Defendant did not calculate the correct overtime rate as required by the 

NMMWA. 

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

and did work, over 40 hours in individual workweeks. 

8.7. 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. 

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

accordance with the law. 

8.9. Defendant’s actions were part of a “continuing course of conduct” (N.M. Stat. 

Ann. § 50-4-32) for which Plaintiff and the Class Members seek recovery for 

himself and the Class Members. 

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-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 12 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 13 

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 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)); 

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; 

Case 7:20-cv-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 13 of 14
____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiff’s Class/Collective Action Complaint 

Page | 14 

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-00144 Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 14 of 14