McGREW v. Quinn's Rental Services (USA) LLC et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER DENYING 6 MOTION to Dismiss and Alternatively, Motion to Stay.(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 25, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SEAN MCGREW, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUINN’S RENTAL SERVICES (USA), LLC
F/K/A QUINN’S ENERGY SERVICES, LLC
F/K/A LEE SPECIALTIES (USA), LLC,
JAMES R. LEE, DOUG QUINN, AND STEVE
VAN TETERING,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION H-16-543
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss and alternatively, motion to stay, filed by
defendant Quinn’s Rental Services (USA), LLC F/K/A Quinn’s Energy Services, LLC F/K/A Lee
Specialties (USA), LLC (“Quinn”). Dkt. 6. After considering the motion, response, and all other
relevant filings, the court finds that Quinn’s motion to dismiss and alternatively, motion to stay,
should be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 1, 2016, plaintiff Sean McGrew (“McGrew”) filed this collective action in an
attempt to recover unpaid overtime wages, which McGrew alleges were owed him pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Dkt. 1. McGrew worked for Quinn, a
specialized oilfield solutions provider, from about October 2011 until January 2015. Id. at 6.
McGrew claims that he and other similarly situated employees regularly worked about 84 hours per
week during this time period. Id. at 8. McGrew states that from about July 2015 until November
2015, he and other putative class members were paid an hourly rate with overtime as well as nondiscretionary job bonuses. Dkt. 7 at 3. However, McGrew alleges that this pay scheme was in
violation of the FLSA because the non-discretionary bonuses were not included in the calculation
of overtime pay. Dkt. 1 at 8. In this case, McGrew defines the collective action as
[a]ll current and former employees who worked for Quinn’s Rental Services (USA),
LLC F/K/A Quinn’s Energy Services, LLC F/K/A Lee Specialties (USA), LLC,
James R. Lee and/or Doug Quinn, at any time from March 1, 2013 through the
present, and were paid hourly plus overtime but whose job bonuses/day rates were
not included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of determining their proper
overtime rate.
Dkt. 1 at 11.
Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, in June 2015, Gary Self, Jr. (“Self”) also filed a collective
action against Quinn. Dkt. 6 at 2. In the complaint, Self alleges that Quinn mis-classified him and
other putative class members as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements and improperly
denied them overtime pay. Dkt. 7 at 2. Self defines the potential collective action as “[a]ll field
employees who worked for Quinn’s Rental Services (USA), LLC F/K/A Quinn’s Energy Services,
LLC F/K/A Lee Specialties (USA), LLC, from June 5, 2012 through the present, and were paid a
salary plus a job bonus but did not receive overtime.” First Amended Collective Action Complaint
at 11, Self v. Quinn’s Rental Serv., No. 4:15-cv-1569 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2015) (Rosenthal, J.), ECF
No. 32. McGrew is an opt-in plaintiff in the Self case. Dkt. 7 at 3.
On April 22, 2016, Quinn filed the pending motion, arguing that this case should be
dismissed or stayed pursuant to the first-to-file rule because of its similarities to the Self case. Dkt. 6.
On May 13, 2016, McGrew filed a response. Dkt. 7. The motion is now ripe for disposition.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The first-to-file rule is a discretionary doctrine that applies when there are related cases
2
pending before two federal courts and the court in the second filed action determines that the issues
raised “substantially overlap.” Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir.
1999); see also Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997). Where the
issues substantially overlap, the court in the second filed action may dismiss the case, stay the case,
or transfer the case to the court in the first filed action. W. Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea
Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 728–730 (5th Cir. 1985). In general, “the court in which an action is first
filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially
similar issues should proceed.” Save Power, 121 F.3d at 948. The first-to-file rule is used to
maximize the values of judicial economy, consistency, and comity. Cadle, 174 F.3d at 604. “[T]he
concern manifestly is to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the
authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.”
Id. (quoting W. Gulf, 751 F.2d at 729).
III. ANALYSIS
In its motion, Quinn argues that substantial overlap exists between this case and the Self case.
Dkt. 6 at 6. Quinn contends that the only substantive difference between this case and the Self case
is that McGrew has added three individual defendants: James R. Lee, Doug Quinn, and Steve Van
Tetering. Id. at 5. Further, Quinn emphasizes that McGrew is also a class member in the Self case.
Id. at 3. Thus, Quinn asserts that this case should either be dismissed or stayed because the Self case
was first filed, the opt-in period was still open in the Self case when this action was filed, and the
issues are the same. Id. at 4–6.
In response, McGrew disputes that substantial overlap exists between the two cases. Dkt. 7.
McGrew argues that although there may be some overlap—for example, both actions are brought
under the FLSA—the core issues of the actions are different. Id. McGrew explains that even though
3
certain class members will be eligible to join both actions, the damages will not overlap because the
Self case deals with a time period when Quinn did not pay overtime at all, whereas this case deals
with a later time period when Quinn paid overtime but did not include the non-discretionary job
bonuses in the overtime pay calculation. Id. at 2–3. Thus, McGrew contends that the key issue in
the Self case is whether the employees were entitled to overtime pay, whereas in this case the key
issue is whether Quinn calculated the amount of overtime pay properly. Id. at 5–6. Therefore,
McGrew disagrees that the issues are duplicative of those currently pending in the Self case. Id. at 7.
Quinn is correct that there are some similarities between this case and the Self case—for
example, both involve claims under the FLSA and will include some of the same parties. However,
the actual claims in the cases are fundamentally different. The Self case centers on the issue of
whether class members were properly characterized as exempt under the FLSA and denied overtime
pay during the time period from June 5, 2012 through June 5, 2015. By contrast, this case centers
on employees who were paid overtime and asks whether Quinn correctly calculated the amount of
overtime paid between July 2015 and November 2015. Therefore, the nature of the claims, relevant
time period, and calculation of potential damages will be entirely different. Finally, rulings from the
Self case will not affect the progress of this case. Because Quinn paid McGrew and other potential
class members overtime during the relevant time period in this case, any questions regarding
exemption are not before this court. Therefore, this case will not hinge on any determinations made
in the Self litigation, nor will proceedings in this court trench upon the authority of the Self court.
Accordingly, the court finds that there is not “substantial overlap” between this case and the Self
case. Therefore, Quinn’s motion is DENIED.
4
IV. CONCLUSION
Quinn’s motion to dismiss and alternatively, motion to stay (Dkt. 6) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on July 25, 2016.
___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge
5
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?