4869670 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUFKIN DIVISION 

ISMAEL ARREOLOA and ISREAL 

ARREOLA, each individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL 

CONTRACTORS, LLC AND SAMUEL 

ESTIS

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

*

Case No. 9:23-cv-50 

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANTS, SOUTHERN 

INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC AND SAMUEL ESTIS, TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – COLLECTIVE ACTION 

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, come Defendants, SOUTHERN 

INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC (“Southern Industrial”) and SAMUEL ESTIS (“Mr. 

Estis”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), who appear herein, fully reserving the right to 

supplement and amend this Answer and Affirmative Defenses as discovery progresses, and who 

with respect to this Honorable Court respond to the Original Complaint – Collective Action filed 

by Plaintiffs, ISMAEL ARREOLA and ISREAL ARREOLA. Defendants deny each and every 

allegation set forth in the Complaint except as expressly admitted herein. As to the allegations set 

forth in each numbered paragraph of the Complaint, the Defendants further respond: 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

1. 

Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs seek relief under the statutes cited in Paragraph 1 

of Plaintiffs’ Complaint but deny that they have engaged in any conduct giving rise to such claims 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 53
2 

4869670 

and deny that Plaintiffs and the alleged putative class and/or putative action members (“putative 

plaintiffs” or “putative members”) they purport to represent are entitled to any of the relief 

requested. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 

2. 

Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to certain remedies in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, but Defendants deny that they have engaged in any conduct giving rise to such 

remedies and deny that the putative plaintiffs or putative members are entitled to any of the 

requested relief. Defendants further deny all remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

4. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to 

Southern Industrial. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint as to Mr. Estis. 

5. 

Southern Industrial admits that it has engaged in business in Texas. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

6. 

Defendants admit that this case is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction, but Defendants deny 

that they reside in Texas. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 54
3 

4869670 

7. 

Defendants deny that they engaged in any conduct giving rise to the claims asserted in 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint. However, certain actions alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, if they occurred, 

occurred in the Lufkin Division of the Eastern District of Texas. Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

III. THE PARTIES 

8. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack 

of sufficient information to justify a belief therein. 

9. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack 

of sufficient information to justify a belief therein. 

10. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

11. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

12. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

13. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to 

Southern Industrial. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 55
4 

4869670 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

14. 

Mr. Estis admits that he partially owns and is employed in the management of a 

construction company – Southern Industrial. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained 

in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

15. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

16. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

17. 

Defendants admit that Mr. Estis had the power to hire and fire Plaintiffs, but Defendants 

deny that Mr. Estis was an operating employer of Southern Industrial. Mr. Estis specifically denies 

that he hired or fired either of the Plaintiffs. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained 

in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

18. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

19. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to 

Southern Industrial. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint as to Mr. Estis. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 56
5 

4869670 

20. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to 

Southern Industrial. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint as to Mr. Estis. 

21. 

Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs were employed by Southern Industrial. Defendants 

deny allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to Mr. Estis. Defendants 

deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

22. 

Southern Industrial admits that Plaintiff, Ismael Arreola, was employed by it on an hourlypaid basis. Mr. Estis denies that he ever employed Plaintiff, Ismael Arreola. Defendants deny all 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

23. 

 Southern Industrial admits that Plaintiff, Israel Arreola, was employed by it on an hourlypaid basis. Mr. Estis denies that he ever employed Plaintiff, Israel Arreola. Defendants deny all 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

24. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

25. 

 Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 57
6 

4869670 

26. 

Defendant Southern Industrial admits that it employed other workers, paid them and 

maintained some records regarding their employment. Defendants deny the remaining allegations 

contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

27. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to Plaintiffs 

only. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint. 

28. 

 Mr. Estis denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Southern Industrial admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to 

the Plaintiffs only. Defendants deny the allegations as to “Travelling Employees” and all 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

29. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as 

written as they did not employ “Traveling Employees.” Defendants deny that they owed Plaintiffs 

or any other employees pay for time spent traveling to the worksite. Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

30. 

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have correctly quoted part of § 29 CFR 785.39. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 58
7 

4869670 

31. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as 

written. 

32. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as 

written. 

33. 

Southern Industrial admits that it maintained time records of time worked by Plaintiffs and 

other Southern Industrial employees that worked at the same worksite. Mr. Estis denies that he 

maintained any such records. Defendants deny the allegations as to “Travelling Employees” and 

all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

34. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Further, Southern Industrial states that it did not prohibit any employees from recording their time. 

35. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as 

written. Defendant, Southern Industrial, compensated Plaintiffs for all time spent working. Mr. 

Estis did not compensate Plaintiffs as he was not their employer. 

36. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Defendant, Southern Industrial, compensated Plaintiffs for all time spent working. Mr. Estis did 

not compensate Plaintiffs as he was not their employer. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 59
8 

4869670 

37. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

38. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and 

further state that Southern Industrial did not employ “Traveling Employees.” Mr. Estis did not 

employ Plaintiffs or any other employees at the same worksite. Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

39. 

 Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

40. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and 

further deny that either employed “Traveling Employees.” 

41. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and 

further deny that the Plaintiffs or any other employees of Southern Industrial were “Traveling 

Employees.” 

42. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

43. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and 

further deny that either employed “Traveling Employees.” 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 60
9 

4869670 

44. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and 

further deny that either employed “Traveling Employees.” 

45. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and 

further deny that either employed “Traveling Employees.” 

46. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

47. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

48. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

49. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

V. REPRESENTATIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

50. 

The allegations of Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion, to which 

no response is required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny 

that Plaintiffs are entitled to bring this suit as a collective action. Defendants further deny that the 

“Travelling Employees”, as that term is used in the Complaint, are similarly situated to Plaintiffs. 

Defendants further deny that Plaintiffs and any potential putative class members are entitled to any 

damages or relief as sought. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 61
10 

4869670 

51. 

Defendants deny that this action should proceed as a collective action under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (“FLSA”). Defendants further respond that Plaintiffs are inadequate collective 

representatives because of the highly specific and individualized nature of the claims in the 

Complaint, that Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the alleged putative class, and that Plaintiffs 

lack standing to bring this lawsuit. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph 51 of 

the Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

52. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs have filed a written Consent to Join this lawsuit. 

53. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and that the 

three year period under the FLSA applies to Plaintiffs or the proposed putative class. 

54. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Defendants deny that the individuals sought to be added as the proposed FLSA collective are 

similarly situated to Plaintiffs or to each other. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 62
11 

4869670 

55. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state legal conclusions 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

56. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Southern Industrial does not keep records as to the residence of each of its employees, if, when or 

how they travel or maintain themselves when they work at a job site outside of their residence. 

57. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Southern Industrial at some point in time possessed the physical and/or mailing addresses if such 

was provided to it by each of its employees. Southern Industrial cannot state with certainty 

whether or not it currently maintains the correct physical and/or mailing addresses for each 

individual member of the proposed collective. 

58. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

VI. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

59. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Defendants further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages or relief as sought. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 63
12 

4869670 

60. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to 

Southern Industrial. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint as to Mr. Estis. 

61. 

The allegations of Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion to which 

no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 61 as written. Further, Defendants believe that Plaintiffs have misstated 

the actual substance of the cited statutes. Defendants deny all remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph 61 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

62. 

Defendants admit that Southern Industrial classified the Plaintiffs as non-exempt from the 

requirements of the FLSA that they be paid overtime. Mr. Estis denies he made any decisions of 

classification of Plaintiffs as exempt or non-exempt. Defendants deny all remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph 62 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

63. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

64. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Defendants further deny that they engaged in any conduct in violation of the FLSA. 

65. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Defendants further deny that they engaged in any conduct in violation of the FLSA. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 64
13 

4869670 

66. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Further, 

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages or relief under the FLSA. 

67. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

68. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

VII. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

69. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

70. 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as to 

Southern Industrial. Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint as to Mr. Estis. 

71. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 65
14 

4869670 

72. 

Defendants admit that Southern Industrial classified the Plaintiffs as non-exempt from the 

requirements of the FLSA that they be paid overtime. Mr. Estis denies he made any decisions of 

classification of Plaintiffs as exempt or non-exempt. 

73. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

74. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

75. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 75 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

76. 

The allegations contained in Paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint state a legal conclusion 

to which a response is not required by Defendants. To the extent that a response is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 76 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

77. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 77 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Further, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed collective action are entitled 

to any damages or relief under the FLSA. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 66
15 

4869670 

78. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Further, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed collective action are entitled 

to any damages or relief under the FLSA. 

79. 

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 79 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Further, Defendants deny that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed collective action are entitled 

to any damages or relief under the FLSA. 

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages or relief as sought and prayed 

for in the Complaint. Defendants further deny that the members of the proposed collective action 

are entitled to any damages or relief sought or prayed for in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 

Defendants specifically deny all allegations not specifically admitted or denied herein. 

AND NOW FURTHER RESPONDING HEREIN, come Defendants, SOUTHERN 

INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC (“Southern Industrial”) and SAMUEL ESTIS (“Mr. 

Estis”) (hereinafter sometimes collectively referred to as “Defendants”) who assert the following 

affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants hereby set forth below their Affirmative 

Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and every cause of action alleged against Defendants therein, 

without assuming or undertaking any burden of proof of the matters that, pursuant to the law, are 

Plaintiffs’ burden of proof. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 67
16 

4869670 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, in whole or in part, against Defendants, upon which relief 

can be granted, either on their behalf or on behalf of those persons they purport to represent or to 

whom they purport to be similarly situated. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Subject to further proof through discovery, some or all of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs 

on behalf of themselves and those they allege to be similarly situated are barred by the equitable 

doctrine of estoppel, unclean hands, laches and/or waiver, respectively. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This suit is not appropriate for collective or representative action pursuant to Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure 23, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), or otherwise, and the Defendants deny that Plaintiffs 

can establish the requisite elements necessary to obtain certification of an FLSA collective action. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This suit is not appropriate for collective representation action status as Plaintiffs fail to 

meet the minimal pleading requirements necessary to maintain a collective action to justify 

issuance of notice pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23, or 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Named Plaintiffs cannot maintain a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216 as neither the 

Plaintiffs, nor the alleged putative plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to each other or anyone else 

for the purposes of allegations or claims made in this lawsuit. Defendants state that collective 

representative treatment is not warranted as multiple distinctions exist as to the alleged putative 

plaintiffs, including but not limited to the fact that not all putative plaintiffs lived in the same 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 68
17 

4869670 

locations, traveled from the same locations, or were instructed to work in the same manner by the 

same supervisors, and had different supervisors. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

This suit is not appropriate for collective or representative action status as plaintiffs fail to 

demonstrate that prosecuting separate actions by individual alleged putative plaintiffs would create 

a risk of inconsistent, dispositive adjudications. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims on behalf of any alleged putative plaintiff are subject to dismissal, in 

whole or in part, to the extent that any alleged putative plaintiff did not incur a cognizable injury, 

did not occur any damages, or otherwise lack standing. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendants aver that Defendants did not show reckless disregard for whether the conduct 

was prohibited by the FLSA. Southern Industrial avers that it relied upon Plaintiffs’ 

representations as to their living and travel arrangements in making decisions concerning their 

compensation. Defendants further relied on the Plaintiffs’ representations concerning the hours 

that they worked and their compliance with Southern Industrial’s policies concerning working 

hours and the recording of time. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendants aver that any violations of the FLSA concerning the Plaintiffs’ compensation 

or compensation of the alleged putative plaintiffs was not willful. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Any action taken with respect to Plaintiffs, and any other individuals they allege to be 

putative plaintiffs, were taken in good faith in conformity with employee timekeeping records and 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 69
18 

4869670 

reliance upon written administrative regulations, order, ruling, approval, interpretation, and/or 

administrative practice or policy pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 259 or regarding Louisiana or Texas 

statutes or regulations. 

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims and the claims of the alleged collective which Plaintiffs purport to 

represent are barred, in whole or in part, without provisions of Section 11 of the Portal-to-Portal 

Act, 29 U.S.C. § 260, because any actions taken in connection with Plaintiffs’ compensation and 

the compensation of the alleged similarly situated collective were done in good faith and/or with 

reasonable grounds for believing that the actions or omissions were not in violation of the FLSA 

or of any Louisiana or Texas statute or regulation. Accordingly, this Court should exercise its 

discretion to eliminate or reduce any potential award of liquidated damages. 

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiffs or any alleged similarly situated employees are awarded 

liquidated damages, they are not entitled to prejudgment interest. 

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Any equitable and/or monetary award to which Plaintiffs and/or the alleged putative 

plaintiffs cannot exceed the limitations, if any, imposed by the applicable statutes, regulations or 

rules. 

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendants are entitled to offset or set off any payments made in error or in excess to the 

Plaintiffs during the same or prior pay periods, specifically, Defendants are entitled to offset or set 

off any compensation paid but not due to Plaintiffs. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 70
19 

4869670 

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiffs and/or the alleged similarly situated employees did not actually 

work the hours which they reported, they are not entitled to recovery under the FLSA. 

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Whether the named Plaintiffs and/or any alleged putative plaintiffs actually worked the 

number of hours reported is questionable. 

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Mr. Estis denies that he was an employer of Plaintiffs and/or any alleged putative plaintiff. 

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendants expressly reserve the right to file and assert any defenses or affirmative 

defenses that are or may become available during subsequent proceedings in this action, whereas 

may be established through discovery. Defendants further reserve the right to amend this Answer 

to assert such defenses upon the discovery of further information regarding Plaintiffs’ claims 

and/or claims by the alleged putative plaintiffs. 

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Defendants further invoke any and all defenses, protections and limitations of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C., et seq., and/or its regulations. 

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Southern Industrial made erroneous, improper deductions from 

Plaintiff’s compensation, or the compensation of the putative collective group, Southern Industrial 

had in place during the relevant time periods a clearly communicated policy that prohibits 

improper deductions and sets forth a clear complaint procedure. Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to 

avail themselves of said policy. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 71
20 

4869670 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, LLC and 

SAMUEL ESTIS respectfully pray that after due proceedings are had, the claims filed in these 

proceedings by Plaintiffs, ISMAEL ARREOLA and ISREAL ARREOLA, be dismissed with 

prejudice, and that judgment be rendered in favor of Defendants for all costs, fees, expenses, 

damages, and attorney’s fees determined to be reasonable in the premises. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P. 

Eve B. Masinter (La. Bar Roll No. 1218) 

Jerry L. Stovall, Jr. (Texas Bar Roll No. 19343700) 

 (La. Bar Roll No. 23318) 

Rachael A. Jeanfreau (La. Bar Roll No. 33903) 

P.O. Box 3197 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-3197 

Telephone: (225) 381-4000 

Facsimile: (225) 387-5397 

eve.masinter@bswllp.com 

jerry.stovall@bswllp.com 

rachael.jeanfreau@bswllp.com 

s/ Jerry L. Stovall, Jr. 

Jerry L. Stovall, Jr. 

Counsel for Southern Industrial, LLC and Sam Estis

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 72
21 

4869670 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUFKIN DIVISION 

ISMAEL ARREOLOA and ISREAL 

ARREOLA, each individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL 

CONTRACTORS, LLC AND SAMUEL 

ESTIS

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

*

No. 9:23-cv-50 

JUDGE: 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and forgoing has been filed via the Court’s electronic 

filing system which will give notice to all counsel of record. 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana this 22nd day of September 2023. 

s/ Jerry L. Stovall, Jr 

Jerry L. Stovall, Jr. 

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 12 Filed 09/22/23 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 73