Granado et al v. Quality Energy Services Inc

Filing 10

ORDER GRANTING 9 Joint Motion to Transfer Case. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (rf) [Transferred from Texas Western on 2/19/2016.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
KEITH GRANADO, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
QUALITY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a QES QUALITY ENERGY
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. SA-15-CV-1061-XR

ORDER
On this date, the Court considered the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer Venue, filed
February 17, 2016 (docket no. 9). After careful consideration, the Court will GRANT the
motion.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Keith Granado, Michael Carr, Melvin Locke, Gabriel Granado, Jr., and
Doyle Rice (“Plaintiffs”) filed this suit on December 2, 2015, against Defendant Quality
Energy Services, Inc. (“Quality Energy”) alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”). Docket no. 1 at 1. The suit is a proposed collective action and the potential class
includes “[a]ll current and former individuals who worked as Flowback Operators for
Defendant for the past three years who were not paid at the rate of at least one-and-one-half of
their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek.”
Id. at 8.

1

On February 17, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Transfer Case. Docket no. 9.
The motion requests that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, as there is a related pending case there:
Jonathan J. Comeaux, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality
Energy Services, Inc., Civ. Ac. No. 6:15-CV-02510-RTH-PJH. Id. at 1.
DISCUSSION
As the parties point out, the Fifth Circuit has adopted a first-to-file approach when
separate actions are filed in different district courts. Igloo Prods. Corp. v. The Mounties, Inc.,
735 F. Supp. 214, 217 (S.D. Tex. 1990) (“Courts in the Fifth Circuit generally follow a ‘firstfiled rule’ in deciding which Court should maintain jurisdiction over claims that arise out of
the same subject matter but are pressed in different suits.”). In such instances, the principle of
comity requires federal district courts to exercise care to avoid interferences with each other’s
affairs. W. Gulf Maritime Assn. v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 1985).
As between federal district courts, the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation, and
the concern is to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings that may trench upon the
authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform
result. Id. Typically if the two cases overlap on the substantive issues, they should be
consolidated in the jurisdiction first seized of the issues. Sutter Corp. v. P & P Industrs., Inc.,
125 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir. 1997).
Application of the first-filed rule is discretionary. Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice,
Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C–O–Two Fire Equip. Co.,
342 U.S. 180, 183–84 (1952)). In applying the first-to-file rule, this Court must resolve two

2

issues: (1) are the two pending actions so duplicative or do they involve substantially similar
issues such that one court should decide the subject matter of both actions; and (2) which of
the two courts should take the case. Tex. Instruments v. Micron Semiconductor, 815 F. Supp.
994, 997 (E.D. Tex. 1993); see also International Fid. Ins. Co. v. Sweet Little Mexico Corp.,
665 F.3d 671, 678 (5th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the rule does not require identical cases,
crucial inquiry is one of “substantial overlap”). Generally, “once the likelihood of substantial
overlap between the two suits has been demonstrated,” the correct course of action is for the
second-filed court to transfer the case to the first-filed court. Cadle, 174 F.3d at 606.
As to the first factor, the Court finds that the two pending cases are duplicative, or at
the very least, “involve substantially similar issues such that one court should decide the
subject matter of both actions.” See Tex. Instruments, 815 F. Supp. at 997. In the case
pending before this Court, Plaintiffs have labeled the potential class as “Flowback Operators”
and allege that they were paid a “salary plus a daily bonus” but no overtime compensation.
Docket no. 1 at 7. In the case pending in the Western District of Louisiana, the plaintiff
alleges that he was an “[o]perator performing technical and manual laborer job duties for
flowback and pressure control jobs” and that Quality Energy paid him and other similar
situated employees improperly via a “salary plus a job bonus or ‘day rate.’” Docket no. 9-1 at
3. The Louisiana plaintiff seeks to certify a collective action class that consists of ‘“[a]ll
operators employed by Quality Energy Services, Inc. in the past 3 years who were paid a
salary and job bonus.’” Id. at 2.
Such a class would presumably cover all potential members of the class proposed in
the case before this Court. Additionally, in both cases, the plaintiffs allege that the actions of

3

Quality Energy violated the FLSA and that Quality Energy committed the violations
intentionally and without good faith. Id. at 4. Thus, it is apparent from the complaints that
these two cases substantially overlap such that they should be decided in one court to avoid
inconsistent outcomes and to preserve judicial resources. Moreover, as the parties point out
in their joint motion, district courts “have routinely applied the first-filed rule in the face of
similar dual collective actions.” Id. (citing White v. Peco Foods, Inc., 546 F.Supp. 2d 339
(S.D. Miss. 2008); Tillery v. Higman Barge Lines, Inc., 2014 WL 1689942 (S.D. Tex. April
29, 2014); Fuller v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 686 (E.D. Tenn.
2005)).
As to the second factor, given that this motion was filed jointly, the Court sees no
reason to depart from the Fifth Circuit’s proscribed course of action, which is for the secondfiled court to transfer the case to the first-filed court. See Cadle, 174 F.3d at 606. Thus, the
Court concludes that this action should be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division. However, the Court declines to order
consolidation of the two cases at this time, as the Fifth Circuit has made clear that it is up to
the second-filed court to determine if the transferred suit should be dismissed or consolidated.
Id.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the parties’ Joint Motion to Transfer Case (docket no. 9) is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division.
It is so ORDERED.

4

SIGNED this 18th day of February, 2016.

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5