Hamilton et al v. Enersafe, Inc et al

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING 25 Motion to Consolidate Cases. The Court designates 5:15-CV-965, the first-filed case, as the lead case; parties are directed to file all motions in the lead case. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (aej)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
JON HAMILTON, CODY GEORGE,
and MARTIN W. KOLODZIRE,
individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated,

§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
vs.
§
ENERSAFE, INC. f/k/a ENERSAFE §
LLC, TCSAFETY, INC., EOG
§
RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a ENRON OIL
§
AND GAS COMPANY, and
MICHAEL CHAD CUNNINGHAM, §
JASON ANDERSON, and C. RYAN §
MCMILLAN, each individually and in §
his official capacity,
§
§
Defendants.
§

CV. NO. 5:15-CV-965-DAE

ALFREDO WISE and MICAH
CANNADY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

CV. NO. 5:15-CV-973-OLG

§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
vs.
§
ENERSAFE, INC., f/k/a ENERSAFE §
LLC & f/k/a TCSAFETY, INC., and
§
EOG RESOURCES, INC., f/k/a
§
ENRON OIL AND GAS COMPANY,
§
§
Defendants.
1

BRANDON CHAUMONT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly
situated,

§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§
EOG RESOURCES, INC., f/k/a/
§
ENRON OIL AND GAS COMPANY, §
OAKS PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC,
§
a/k/a OAKS GROUP, and CIELO
§
ENERGY CONSULTING, LLC,
§
§
Defendants.

CV. NO. 5:15-CV-1003-OLG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES
Before the Court is a Motion to Consolidate Related Cases, filed by
Defendant EOG Resources, Inc. (“EOG”) (Dkt. # 25). Defendants Oaks Personnel
Services, Inc. (“Oaks”) and Enersafe, Inc. (“Enersafe”) each filed a response.
(Dkt. # 26; No. 5:15-cv-973 Dkt. # 50.) No other party filed a response. Pursuant
to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds this matter is suitable for disposition
without a hearing. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to Consolidate Cases
is GRANTED (Dkt. # 25).

2

FACTS
I.

The Hamilton Suit
On November 6, 2015, Plaintiffs John Hamilton, Cody George, and

Martin Kolodzire (“Hamilton Plaintiffs”) filed suit on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated against the following Defendants: (1) EOG; (2) Enersafe;
(3) TCSafety, Inc. (“TCSafety”); (4) Michael Cunningham, former president of
TCSafety and current Executive Vice President of EnerSafe; (5) Jason Anderson,
current Vice President of Enersafe; and (6) Ryan McMillan, former President and
current CEO of Enersafe. (“Hamilton Compl.,” Dkt. # 1 ¶¶ 10–15.)
The Hamilton Plaintiffs each allege that they were employed by
TCSafety, which merged with Enersafe in 2014. (Hamliton Compl. ¶ 18.) One
Hamilton Plaintiff, Cody George, alleges that even though he was hired by
TCSafety and paid by TCSafety and Enersafe, he worked at EOG after the merger
with Enersafe. (Id. ¶¶ 27–32.) The Hamilton Plaintiffs allege that they frequently
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but were not compensated for their
overtime hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201–219. (Hamilton Compl. ¶¶ 38–60). The Hamilton Plaintiffs seek to bring
a collective action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Mr. Hamilton makes an
additional, individual claim for retaliation, in violation of the FLSA. (Id. ¶¶ 61–

3

63.) At this time, six additional plaintiffs have opted into this suit. (Dkts. ## 16,
20, 22–24.)
II.

The Wise Suit
On November 7, 2015, Plaintiffs Alfredo Wise and Micah Cannady

(“Wise Plaintiffs”) brought suit against EOG and Enersafe, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, and filed an amended complaint on April
21, 2016. (“Wise Am. Compl.,” No. 5-15-cv-973, Dkt. # 45.) The Wise Plaintiffs
state that they worked for EOG and were paid by Enersafe. (Id. ¶ 1.) They allege
that they were mischaracterized as independent contractors and were not
compensated for overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Wise
Plaintiffs also allege that they suffered retaliation in violation of the FLSA, and
were denied employee benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. (Id. ¶¶ 44–53; ¶¶ 94–98; 136–165.)
The Wise Plaintiffs seek to bring a collective action against EOG and Enersafe
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and to bring a class action against EOG and
Enersafe to assert their rights under ERISA. (Id. ¶¶ 44–53; 167–191.)
Approximately thirty additional plaintiffs have opted into this suit. (No. 5:15-cv973, Dkts. ## 11–13; 15–18; 23–31; 33–35; 37; 39–41.)

4

III.

The Chaumont Suit
On November 16, 2015, Brandon Chaumont filed suit against EOG,

Oaks, and Cielo Energy Consulting, LLC (“Cielo”) on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated. (“Chaumont Compl.,” No. 5:15-cv-1003, Dkt. # 1.) Chaumont
alleges that he was employed by EOG and paid by Oaks and Cielo. (Id. ¶ 1.) He
further alleges that he was mischaracterized as an independent contractor, and that
he frequently worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without being compensated
for overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA. (Chaumont Compl. ¶¶ 47–71.)
Chaumont seeks to bring a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for
violations of the FLSA. (Chaumont Compl. ¶¶ 85–97; 98–105.) Three additional
plaintiffs have opted into this suit. (No. 5:15-cv-1003, Dkts. ## 13, 15.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides that if actions “involve
a common question of law or fact,” the court may “consolidate the actions” or
“issue any other order to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
The decision to consolidate actions under Rule 42(a) is “entirely within the
discretion of the district court as it seeks to promote the administration of justice.”
Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973).
Rule 42(a) “rests on principles of comity and sound judicial
administration.” Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 603 (5th
5

Cir. 1999). “The 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 West
Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 24, 751 F.2d 721, 729 (5th Cir.
1985)). This “rule does not require the cases to be identical,” but there should be
“substantial overlap” between the issues presented by the cases. Int’l Fidelity Ins.
Co. v. Sweet Little Mex. Corp., 665 F.3d 671, 678 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Save
Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997)).
ANALYSIS
Each of the three cases currently before the Court brings labor-related
claims against EOG and various other companies—all of which appear to be
affiliated with EOG in some manner—for violations of the FLSA. (See Hamilton
Compl.; Wise Am. Compl.; Chaumont Compl.) In each case, employees allege
that they were not paid overtime, in violation of the FLSA; the Plaintiffs in both
Wise and Chaumont allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors
and paid by various Defendant companies rather than by EOG. EOG argues that
“[a]ll three suits involve substantially the same witnesses for discovery and
investigation purposes” (Dkt. # 25 at 7). Oaks responded that it did not oppose the
instant Motion, to the extent the cases were consolidated for discovery. (Dkt.

6

# 26.) Enersafe does not oppose the motion to consolidate. (No. 5:15-cv-973 Dkt.
# 50.) Neither Plaintiffs, nor any other Defendant filed a response.
Plaintiffs in each case are represented by the same counsel: Allen R.
Vaught, Esq. and Glenn Deutsch Levy, Esq. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Notice of
potentially related cases in both the Wise and Chaumont cases, identifying
similarities between the Hamilton, Wise, and Chaumont cases, respectively. (5-15cv-973, Dkt. # 10; 5-15-cv-1003, Dkt. # 6.) Plaintiffs have not filed a Response to
the instant Motion. No dispositive motion or motion for conditional certification
has been filed in any of the three cases.
At this stage of the litigation, there is substantial overlap among the
factual and legal issues presented by the cases. While the claims do not involve
identical parties, and do not present identical legal issues, the parties and issues
overlap to such a degree that consolidation will eliminate unnecessary repetition
involving complicated questions of fact and eliminate the risks of duplication and
of “piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.” Cadle Co., 174
F.3d at 603.
Rule 42(b) permits the Court to “order a separate trial of one or more
separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 42(b). Accordingly, if the parties determine at the close of discovery that
distinct causes of action exist against distinct parties – for example, if they
7

determine that the ERISA claim in the Wise suit is not sufficiently related to the
FLSA claims presented by the three cases – they may move the Court to bifurcate
the action. See E.E.O.C. v. Lawler Foods, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 972, 974 (S.D.
Tex. Sept. 10, 2015); Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion to
Consolidate (Dkt. # 25) to avoid unnecessary cost or delay and promote the
administration of justice. The Court designates 5:15-CV-965, the first-filed case,
as the lead case; parties are directed to file all motions in the lead case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, June 17, 2016.

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

8