16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs.   17. J&M Tank Lines, Inc. is a company that provides commodities such as sand, calcium  carbonate, lime, flour, and salt.   18. J&M is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama but has locations in Texas and Georgia.   19. Plaintiff and class members worked for J&M out of Odessa, Texas.    20. Luis Calvillo worked for J&M as a sand hauler from December 2014 to August 2015. His  job duties are typical of a J&M sand hauler as described herein. Calvillo has worked for  J&M in Texas and New Mexico.   22. The sand is used a proppant – a solid material designed to keep an induced hydraulic  facture open during (or after) a fracturing treatment.   23. Sand is a critical part of the hydraulic fracturing process.   24. Sand haulers are an integral part of the hydraulic process.   25. The drilling operation takes place 24 hours a day. It is essential to have the right amount  of sand ready and available to load into the blender used to mix the propellant into the  fracking fluid.    26. J&M’s customers rely on Plaintiff and class members to be ready on site with their load  of sand and be able to move up the line and unload their sand at the right time and the  right location. The sand is unloaded into the “sand kings” which are huge containers that  hold the sand during drilling operations.    27. The sand haulers’ work is an essential part of the well stimulation production process.   28. J&M required Plaintiff and class members to wait at the drilling site until it was their turn  to unload their sand.    29. J&M required Plaintiff and class members to sit in their trucks and be on standby for up  to 24 hours, 48 hours, or more at the drill site and be prepared to unload their sand.   30. According to company policy, sand haulers were paid a fixed amount per job and per  load. These payments constituted a job rate and a piece rate respectively under the FLSA.    31. In addition, sand haulers were paid an hourly rate for the time they spent on standby, but  only up to 12 hours.    32. Sand haulers were not paid for standby time of more than 12 hours.    34. The drive from the shop in Odessa to the drill sites in New Mexico was at least 3 hours  each way.   35. Sand haulers were not paid for drive time to and from the drill site.    36. With respect to travel time, employees are entitled to compensation for travel time that is  a “principal activity” of the employee. Vega v. Gasper, 36 F.3d 417 at 424 (5th Cir.  1994).   37. Plaintiff’s drive time between the shop and the drill sites was performed as part of the  regular work of the employees in the ordinary course of business of J&M.   38. The travel time between the shop and the drill sites was necessary to the business and is  performed by the employees, primarily for the benefit of J&M.   39. Such travel is not ordinary home to work travel, which is generally not a “principal  activity” and thus non-compensable according to the Portal-to-Portal Act.   40. Because transporting the sand to the drill site was a principal activity of the sand haulers,  it constituted compensable work time under the FLSA.   41. No advanced degree is required to become a sand hauler. In fact, J&M regularly hires  sand haulers who have only a high-school diploma (or less).   42. Plaintiff does not have an advanced degree. Being a sand hauler does not require  specialized academic training as a standard prerequisite.   43. To the extent sand haulers make “decisions,” the decisions do not require the exercise of  independent discretion and judgment.   44. Instead, sand haulers apply well-established techniques and procedures.   45. If sand haulers evaluate sand quality, they do so using established standards.   47. Sand haulers are not permitted to deviate from established sand quality standards.   48. Sand haulers are blue collar workers. They rely on their hands, physical skills, and  energy, to perform manual labor in the oilfield.   49. Sand haulers work long hours. While in the field, sand haulers regularly work more than  12 hours in a day, 7 days a week.   50. Sand haulers regularly work more than 90 hours in a week. As an example, Calvillo  averaged 12 (or more) hours per day, each day that he worked.    51. However, J&M does not pay its sand haulers overtime under the New Mexico Minimum  Wage Act (“NMMWA”) for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. J&M does not  pay sand haulers for compensable travel time, or for standby time of more than 12 hours.   52. As a result of J&M’s pay policies, Plaintiff and the New Mexico Class were denied the  overtime pay required by state law.    53. Workers who are exempt from overtime under the FLSA due to the Motor Carrier Act  exemption, may still be eligible for overtime pay according to state law such as the  NMMWA. Pettis Moving Co. v. Roberts, 784 F.2d 439, 441 (2d Cir. 1986).   54. As a result of J&M’s pay policies, Plaintiff, the New Mexico Class, and the FLSA Class  were denied the minimum wage pay required by state and federal law.    55. J&M keeps records of the hours its sand haulers work.    56. These records reflect the fact that Plaintiff and the FLSA Class worked more than 40  hours a week.    57. Plaintiff seeks compensation for unpaid minimum wage under the FLSA and the New  Mexico Minimum Wage Act, as well as unpaid overtime under the NMMWA.   58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs.   59. In addition to the Plaintiff, J&M employed dozens of other sand haulers within the past 3  years.    60. J&M paid (and pays) all its sand haulers a combination job rate, piece rate and hourly  rate.   61.  This is the same pay system J&M applied to the Plaintiff.    62. The FLSA Class members perform the job duties typical of a J&M sand hauler.    63. The FLSA Class is similarly situated to the Plaintiff.    64. The FLSA Class should be notified of this action and given the chance to join pursuant to  29 U.S.C. § 216(b).    65. Plaintiff brings state law claims on behalf of all sand haulers employed in New Mexico  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (the “New Mexico Class”).    66. J&M employed at least 40 sand haulers in New Mexico during the past 3 years.   67. These workers are geographically disbursed, residing in other states (such as Louisiana  and Texas).    68. Because these workers do not have fixed work locations, sand haulers work in different  states across the country in the course of a given year.   69. For example, Calvillo worked at least one workweek of more than 40 hours in both New  Mexico and Texas from June 2015 to July 2015.   71. Plaintiff retained counsel who is experienced and competent in class action and  employment litigation.   72. Plaintiff has no relevant interest contrary to, or in conflict with, the members of the  classes.   73. Like each member of the proposed classes, Calvillo has an interest in obtaining the  unpaid overtime wages owed under state law and unpaid minimum wages owed under  both state and federal law.    74. A collective/class action suit, such as the instant one, is superior to other available means  for fair and efficient adjudication of the lawsuit.    75. Absent these actions, many members of the classes likely will not obtain redress of their  injuries and J&M will retain the proceeds of its violations of the FLSA and the applicable  state labor law.    76. Furthermore, even if particular members of the classes could afford individual litigation  against J&M, it would be unduly burdensome to the judicial system.   77. Concentrating the litigation in one forum will promote judicial economy and parity  among the claims of individual members of the classes and provide for judicial  consistency.   78. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact affecting  the New Mexico Class as a whole.    79. The questions of law and fact common to the New Mexico Class predominate over any  questions affecting solely the individual members.   81. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the classes.   82. Plaintiff, the FLSA Class, and the New Mexico Class, have all sustained damages arising  out of J&M’s wrongful and uniform employment policy.   83. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this  litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a collective or class action.  84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations contained in the preceding  paragraphs.   85. By failing to pay Plaintiff and the New Mexico Class overtime at 1 and ½ times their  regular rates, J&M violated the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M.S.A. § 50-4-19 et  seq.   86. J&M owes Plaintiffs and the Class overtime wages equal to 1 and ½ their regular rates  for each overtime hour worked during the last three years.   87. J&M knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, its failure to pay overtime violated  the NMMWA.   88. J&M’s failure to pay overtime to Plaintiff and the Class is willful.   89. J&M owes Plaintiff and the Class an amount equal to all unpaid overtime wages as well  as liquidated damages.   90. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs  incurred in this action.   91.  Defendants’ Sand Haulers routinely use hard hats, gloves, safety glasses, ear protection,  hoses, hammers, Kenworth tractor, PeopleNet satellite tracking system, in performing  their job duties of hauling specialized fracking sand from Texas to New Mexico. Thus the  employees used, handled, sold, and/or worked on, goods or materials that were produced  for or traveled in interstate commerce.  93. The conduct alleged in this Complaint violates the FLSA and New Mexico Minimum  Wage Act (NMMWA), NMSA § 50-4-19 et seq.   94. J&M was and is an “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA and the NMMWA.   95. At all relevant times, J&M employed Plaintiff, and each of the New Mexico Class  members, as an “employee” within the meaning of the FLSA and the NMMWA.   96. Both statutes require employer like J&M to pay minimum wage to all non-exempt  employees.   97. Plaintiff and the other New Mexico Class members are non-exempt employees who are  entitled to be paid no less than minimum wage for all hours worked.    98. Within the applicable limitations period, J&M had a policy and practice of failing to pay  minimum wage pay to the FLSA Class members for all their hours worked.    99. As a result of J&M’s failure to pay overtime to Plaintiff and the FLSA Class members at  a rate not less than the minimum wage of $7.50 for all hours worked in New Mexico, and  not less than $7.25 for other hours worked, J&M violated the NMMWA and the FLSA.  100.  Plaintiff and the other New Mexico Class members seek the amount of their  underpayments based on J&M’s failure to minimum wage, an equal amount as liquidated  damages, and such other legal and equitable relief from J&M’s willful conduct as the  Court deems just and proper.  101.  Plaintiff and the New Mexico Class members also seek recovery of attorneys’  fees and costs of this action to be paid by J&M, as provided by the NMMWA.  VIOLATION OF THE MINIMUM WAGE PROVISION OF   THE FLSA AND NMMWA (FLSA CLASS)  