United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
OPINION AND ORDER
MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court in the above referenced cause, brought by
Plaintiffs who were at varying times employed as non-exempt
day-rate employees with Defendant RDL Energy Services, L.P.
("RDL"), a Texas staffing corporation operating
throughout the United States, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201,
et seq., and seeking unpaid overtime compensation
and reimbursement of expenses incurred on the employer's
behalf of sums spent for the convenience of the employer
under 29 C.F.R. § 778.217, are the following motions:
(1) Defendant Greene's Energy Group, LLC's
("Greene's") Motion for Leave to File its
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Request for
Expedited Consideration (Doc. 145);
(2) Defendant RDL's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
on Statute of Limitations (Doc. 146); and
(3) Defendant Greene's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
Greene's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 147)
Greene's, allegedly a joint employer of Plaintiffs, filed
a Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 147, arguing Plaintiffs
failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a plausible
claim for relief, and therefore, a grant of summary judgment
is appropriate. Where a summary judgment motion mounts
challenges solely to the sufficiency of a plaintiffs
pleadings, those challenges are reviewed under a motion to
dismiss standard. Zastrow v. Houston Auto Imports
Greenway Ltd., 789 F.3d 553, 559 (5th Cir. 2015).
Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 544 (5th Cir.1993).
Under this standard, "[t]he plaintiff must plead enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Gines v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 699 F.3d
812, 816 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"We accept all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."
Court has already analyzed the sufficiency of the
Plaintiffs' pleadings regarding Defendants Baker Hughes
and Weatherford, alleged joint employers along with
Greene's, and found that they were insufficient. Doc. 130
at 4-64. Greene's motion for summary judgment rests on
the same allegations, case law, and analysis the Court
applied when it dismissed the other alleged joint employers.
See Id. at 56-64.
pleadings regarding Greene's are nearly identical to its
pleadings regarding Baker Hughes and Weatherford. Plaintiffs
do not allege anything additional that would distinguish its
claims against Greene's from those against Baker Hughes
and Weatherford or would otherwise change the analysis.
Therefore, adopting and incorporating the standards of
review, the substantive law, the summary of Plaintiffs'
allegations, and the analysis of this Court's previous
Order, Doc. 130, as if that Order were fully set forth
verbatim herein, the Court agrees with Greene's that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible claim against it.
For these reasons, further explained below, Greene's
Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
Greene's argues that Plaintiffs have failed to plead
facts sufficient to establish plausible claims for relief. In
particular, Plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to
establish joint employment. The Court agrees with
Greene's that Plaintiffs have failed to state a plausible
claim against it. In their third amended complaint, Doc. 61,
Plaintiffs have simply parroted boilerplate language of the
FLSA for individual and enterprise coverage without
supporting facts. Plaintiffs have made vague, general,
conclusory statements that fail to state plausible claims for
"joint employer" status, for overtime or minimum
wages, for willfulness, or for a collective action.
Plaintiffs do not plead facts showing that Greene's
employed any specific Plaintiff or even that it qualifies as
an "employer, " no less as a "joint employer,
" under the FLSA. Plaintiffs further fail to provide
Greene's with notice of what duties the RDL employees
performed, under what terms, the time period they worked for
RDL, and when and which Plaintiffs performed duties for
Greene's while being employed by RDL. Plaintiffs fail to
differentiate among the different Defendant corporate
entities, but instead make the same vague, conclusory
allegations against all.
must show that Greene's is a "joint employer"
with RDL within the meaning of the FLSA, i.e., they must
examine each work assignment of a particular Plaintiff in
order to see if his employer meets the requirements of a
joint employer relationship. The Court finds that Plaintiffs
have failed to allege facts or provide evidence that
Greene's was a joint employer. Since Plaintiffs have not
pled facts sufficient to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face, Greene's Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted.
RDL's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.
RDL filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Statute of
Limitations, Doc. 146, arguing Plaintiffs' claims are
time-barred by the statute of limitations and must be
dismissed. For the reasons discussed below, RDL's motion
the statute of limitations for an action brought under the
FLSA such as the present ...