United States District Court, D. Colorado
JOSE BLANCO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
XTREME DRILLING AND COIL SERVICES, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendant.
A. BRIMMER United States District Judge.
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.
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.
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,
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. Plaintiff states that his duties included
“cleaning the rig, tightening its parts and pipes and
refilling drilling mud.” Id., ¶ 3.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
“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).
Wage Order “regulates wages, hours, working conditions
and procedures for certain employers and employees” in
(A) Retail and Service
(B) Commercial Support ...