Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Blanco v. Xtreme Drilling And Coil Services Inc.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

March 9, 2017

JOSE BLANCO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
v.
XTREME DRILLING AND COIL SERVICES, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER

          PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Xtreme Drilling and Coil Services, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Docket No. 17]. Defendant seeks summary judgment that it is not subject to the Colorado Minimum Wage Order (“Wage Order”), 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1103-1:1 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The case arises out of a wage and hour dispute. Plaintiff contends that defendant failed to pay him overtime wages required under the Wage Order. See Docket No. 1 at 2-3, ¶ 7.

         Defendant is in the oil and gas industry. Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SUMF”) 10, Docket No. 17 at 3, ¶ 10. Defendant provides drilling services to oil and natural gas exploration companies. SUMF 2-3, Docket No. 17 at 2, ¶¶ 2-3. Defendant owns the drilling rigs that it uses to provide such services. SUMF 16, Docket No. 17 at 3, ¶ 16.

         Plaintiff is a former employee of defendant. Docket No. 7 at 2, ¶ 2. He states in his declaration that he worked in various manual labor jobs where he “helped set up, maintain and operate Xtreme's drilling rigs as well as breaking down the equipment at the end of jobs.” Docket No. 18-1 at 1, ¶ 2.[1] Plaintiff states that his duties included “cleaning the rig, tightening its parts and pipes and refilling drilling mud.” Id., ¶ 3.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Summary judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). A disputed fact is “material” if under the relevant substantive law it is essential to proper disposition of the claim. Wright v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001). Only disputes over material facts can create a genuine issue for trial and preclude summary judgment. Faustin v. City & Cty. of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 2005). An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997).

         Where “the moving party does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial, it may satisfy its burden at the summary judgment stage by identifying a lack of evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the nonmovant's claim.” Bausman v. Interstate Brands Corp., 252 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted)). “Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial on a material matter.” Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & Cty. of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1518 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). The nonmoving party may not rest solely on the allegations in the pleadings, but instead must designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). “To avoid summary judgment, the nonmovant must establish, at a minimum, an inference of the presence of each element essential to the case.” Bausman, 252 F.3d at 1115 (citation omitted). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id.; see McBeth v. Himes, 598 F.3d 708, 715 (10th Cir. 2010).

         III. ANALYSIS

         The Wage Order “regulates wages, hours, working conditions and procedures for certain employers and employees” in four “industries”:

(A) Retail and Service
(B) Commercial Support ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.