Rolando Torres, an employee of Key Energy Services, LLC, on behalf of himself and current and former similarly situated employees. Specifically, the putative class is defined in the First Amended Complaint as: “all nonexempt employees of [Key Energy Services, LLC] in California who have traveled in company-owned vehicles to remote worksites at any time from June 24, 2010 to the present.
This is a class action complaint that seeks compensation from Key Energy Services, LLC for unpaid travel time, minimum wage, overtime, and doubletime and denied meal periods. The complaint also seeks civil penalties for various violations of California law under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The case is pending in the Kern County Superior Court in Bakersfield. It is case number S-1500-CV-282362 DRL.
Mr. Torres filed his original complaint on June 24, 2014. He seeks damages going back as far as four years from that date, or June 24, 2010.
The First Amended Complaint alleges as follows:
Mr. Torres and the aforementioned putative Class are employees who have worked for Key Energy Services, LLC ("DEFENDANTS") within the four years prior to the date of filing the original Complaint in this matter (together, the “PLAINTIFFS” herein). Mr. Torres and the Class worked as non-exempt employees for DEFENDANTS. Unfortunately, during their employment with DEFENDANTS, Mr. Torres and the Class were not paid all wages, including straight-time, overtime, and/or doubletime wages, as required by law. Such unpaid time includes, but is not limited to, meal periods, regular time, overtime and doubletime hours, minimum wages owed (pursuant to Armenta v. Osmose (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 314), preparatory time and travel time. Further, Mr. Torres and the Class worked through specific meal periods in vio- lation of California law. It is alleged that DEFENDANTS intentionally denied Mr. Torres and the Class wages that should have been paid and violated California Labor Code section 512. Defendant did not permit Mr. Torres and the Class to take all lawful meal periods to which they are entitled, including at times a second meal period as required by law when an employee works more than 10 hours.
If you are an affected employee (or know someone who is), please contact the lawyers for the putative class, Strauss & Strauss, APC. Ask for Michael Strauss. Or you can simply fill in the contact form to the right.
First Amended Complaint