Ratley v. Harley Marine Services, Inc. et al
Filing
30
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Certify Class ; GRANTED in part, but only insofar as it seeks authorization to send Notice to the vessel tankermen employed by the named Defendant, Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, within the past three years and DENIED as to allow it to send Notice to the vessel tankermen, if any, of the additional subsidiaries of Defendant HMS.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
JACK A. RATLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated
V.
HARLEY MARINE SERVICES, INC.
and HARLEY MARINE GULF, LLC.
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. G-12-247
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court, by referral from the District Court, is the “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Notice to Potential Class Members.”
The Motion is opposed by the two named
Defendants, Harley Marine Services, Inc. (HMS) and one of its subsidiary companies,
Harley Marine Gulf, LLC (HMG). Having considered the Parties submissions, the Court
now issues this Opinion and Order.
This is the sixth FLSA “overtime” case on this Court’s docket filed by Plaintiff’s
counsel on behalf of vessel tankermen employed on barges operating in this area of the
country; however, in this case, counsel’s proposed class is far too ambitious. HMS is the
parent company of HMG.
According to HMS, HMG operates barges providing
“Bunkering/Petroleum Transportation” in the Gulf Coast inland waters of Texas and
Louisiana and along the Mississippi River. HMG, like the Defendants in the other five
cases, employs certified tankermen aboard its barges. Having previously authorized the
same Notice to Potential Class Members in those five cases that counsel seeks to have
authorized in the instant case, the Court sees no need to dwell, at length, on this aspect of
the Plaintiff’s Motion.
The Motion, therefore, will be granted insofar as it seeks
authorization to send Notice to vessel tankermen employed by HMG.
In additional to HMG, however, HMS has eight other subsidiaries, not currently
named as Defendants, operating in distant areas of the United States and the Plaintiffs have
moved the Court to authorize Notice to the vessel tankermen employed by those companies
as well. This the Court will not do and its reasons as to each subsidiary will be briefly
addressed.
1.
Harley Marine NY (HMNY), like HMG, performs “Bunker/Petroleum
Transportation,” but it serves the New York/New Jersey area and its employees are
unionized under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which expressly provides for
overtime pay.
2.
Westoil Marine Services (Westoil) also performs “Bunkering/Petroleum
Transportation,” but it serves the Los Angeles/Long Beach, California, area and its
employees, like those of HMNY, are unionized under a CBA which expressly provides for
overtime pay.
3. Millenium Marine, Inc. (MMI) merely provides tug boats to Westoil; according
to HMS, it employs no vessel tankermen at all.
4. Pacific Coast Maritime operates in Alaskan waters and, like MMI, it employs
no tankermen.
2
5. Pacific Terminal Services is an oil terminal operation in Portland, Oregon; it,
too, has no tankermen employees.
6. Public Service Marine performs “Petroleum Transportation,” but it services the
California coast.
7.
Olympic Tug & Barge performs, inter alia, “Bunkering/Petroleum
Transportation,” but it services the “Blue Waters” of the Seattle, Washington, and
Portland, Oregon, areas.
8. Finally, Starlight Marine Services performs, inter alia, “Bunkering/Petroleum
Transportation,” but it serves the San Francisco Bay Area of California and its employees,
like those of HMNY and Westoil, are unionized under a CBA which expressly provides
for overtime pay.
This Court suspects, without finding, that each of the non-unionized subsidiaries
that could possibly be similar to HMG have some unique aspects of the duties of their
respective vessel tankermen, but, regardless, this Court finds that to conditionally certify
a class, or classes, of vessel tankermen, including those living and working along the entire
west coast of the United States, and then attempt to administer the attendant litigation from
Galveston, Texas, would be a relatively unwise and foolhardy task, and one this Court
prefers to avoid. After all, there are competent, and much more convenient, federal courts
available for such lawsuits in California, Oregon, Washington and, the Court suspects,
Alaska as well.
3
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Notice to Potential Class
Members” (Instrument no. 16) is GRANTED in part, but only insofar as it seeks
authorization to send Notice to the vessel tankermen employed by the named Defendant,
Harley Marine Gulf, LLC, within the past three years.
As far as the manner of Notice is concerned, the Court sees no need to vary from
the Notice procedures it has previously authorized in the five earlier cases and those
procedures are hereby ADOPTED and incorporated herein by reference. See G:11-cv306, Figgs v. Kirby Corporation, et al., Document No. 30.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Instrument no. 16) to allow it to
send Notice to the vessel tankermen, if any, of the additional subsidiaries of Defendant
HMS is DENIED.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this
12th
4
day of February, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?