PITTSBURGH – A jurisdictional dispute is currently underway in the case of an Allegheny County man who brought class action litigation against a well drilling contractor, claiming it unlawfully withheld overtime pay from himself and other employees in violation of multiple wage payment laws.
Ryan Copley (individually and on behalf of all those similarly-situated) first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Aug. 25 versus Evolution Well Services, LLC, of Washington.
“This action is brought by Copley on his own behalf and as a representative of the proposed class consisting of all employees of Evolution Well Services who were required to report to a designated company location to begin their day, and did not receive appropriate compensation for any of the time between the mandatory reporting time, and the beginning of their next work task,” the suit stated.
“Copley worked for Evolution Well Services as an employee. As an employee of Evolution Well Services, Copley was subject to a number of requirements including; A) Living in housing which was owned and provided by the defendant when on-call; B) Reporting every morning to a designated pickup location determined by defendant, and at a time prescribed by defendant; C) Being transported by the defendant to the location where he was to complete the day’s work; and D) Reporting to the designated pickup location to be brought back to the company-owned housing.”
On any average day, Copley said he would be required to arrive at the pickup location, where and others would be transported to a location determined by Evolution Well Services. That daily drive would take upwards of an hour on average, he said, and the process was repeated, in reverse, at the end of each workday as well.
“Copley had no option to choose to live closer to the worksite, nor did he have the option to transport himself to the worksite. By all accounts, defendant, through its mandatory arrival time and strict control of the transportation arrangements, required Mr. Copley to report to work and start his day by showing up to the pick-up point. This pick up point was the start of Mr. Copley’s work day, and the subsequent commute via company mandated transport was time that Mr. Copley was ‘clocked in’ for, however, he was not paid for any time during this commute, again equaling up to two hours per day on average,” per the suit.
“Evolution Well Services did pay the operators of the company vehicles for the time that they were driving Copley and others to and from the worksite however. Because this was time that Copley was on the job, it was time to which he was entitled compensation. Defendant knowingly and purposefully failed to pay Copley for the time that they required him to be transported him to and from the site each day. Defendant Evolution Well Services employs a significant number of other employees like Copley.”
UPDATE
Evolution Well Services filed to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 25, citing diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount of damages in question.
“By alleging that he is a citizen of Pennsylvania in the complaint, plaintiff’s citizenship for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction is Pennsylvania. Defendant was formed as a Delaware limited liability company and its principal place of business is located at 3 Hughes Landing, 1780 Hughes Landing Boulevard, Suite 125, The Woodlands, Texas, 77380. Because plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties,” per the removal motion.
Additionally, the defendant said the plaintiff’s claimed amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and thereby needs to be heard in federal court.
Counsel for Copley filed a response motion to remand the case back to state court on Oct. 20, referring to the removal motion as “facially defective”, since it “improperly states and addresses the nature of ‘citizenship’ for a limited liability company.”
“As the defendant is the party seeking removal to district court, the onus is on it to establish that such jurisdiction exists. And as stated above, it is required that the defendant sufficient plead that removal is proper, with a heightened scrutiny placed on the petition for removal and any disputes being resolved in favor of remand back to the state court. In other words, should the notice of removal be facially defective, remand is the appropriate course of action,” plaintiff counsel’s reply stated.
“In its subsection entitled ‘Sufficient Diversity of Citizenship Exists’, the defendant cites the state of incorporation and the state in which the defendant has its principal place of business as the two states of which it is a citizen. In fact, this is not the test for determining the citizenship of an LLC. The defendant makes no mention in its notice of removal about the citizenship or residence of any of its members.”
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Wage Payment Collections Law, the plaintiff is seeking damages for all class plaintiffs in excess of the arbitration limits, including: 1) Full back pay for all hours not compensated to date, 2) Liquidated damages as allowed under the WPCL, 3) Pre-judgment interest, 4) All costs associated with this litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, 5) Injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant from violating the WPCL in the future, and 6) Any other relief which the Court deem necessary and proper, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Sean L. Ruppert of Ruppert Manes Narahari, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Catherine S. Ryan and Christopher Bouriat of Reed Smith, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01442
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-009129
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com