Skip to Main Content
employment

Thomas Ganci v. MBF Inspection Services, Inc.

Court File No. 2:15-cv-02959 (Southern District of Ohio)

If you worked for MBF Inspection Services, Inc. and were paid on a day-rate basis, a collective action lawsuit may affect your rights.

A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

You are not being sued.

ALTHOUGH THIS NOTICE AND ITS CONTENTS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE HONORABLE GEORGE C. SMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, THE COURT TAKES NO POSITION REGARDING THE MERITS OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS OR DEFENDANT’S DEFENSES.

  • Thomas Ganci, who worked as a former welding inspector for MBF Inspection Services, Inc. (“MBF”), has filed a lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees. This lawsuit alleges that MBF failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
  • The Court has made a finding that notice of the lawsuit should be distributed to all inspection personnel who worked for MBF from September 20, 2013 to the present date.
  • The Court has not yet decided whether MBF did anything wrong. There has been no money awarded, there is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. However, in order for you to participate in this case against MBF, you must return the enclosed consent form by December 12, 2016.

Type of Case

Unpaid Overtime Wages

Share

Case Updates

  • November 2, 2015

    Day Rate Oilfield Workers Represented by Nichols Kaster, PLLP File Overtime Action Against MBF Inspection Services, Inc.

    On October 30, 2015, a former welding inspector filed a lawsuit in the Southern District Court of Ohio seeking overtime pay from MBF Inspection Services, Inc. (“MBF”).  He brought the case on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees nationwide and an Ohio state class action on behalf of all eligible Ohio employees who were paid a day rate and no additional overtime premium. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that MBF failed to pay these employees an overtime premium in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio state law.  The lawsuit seeks overtime premiums plus double damages.

    MBF is an inspection services company that supplies inspection personnel to oil and natural gas companies across the country for use on various projects. The company is headquartered in Roswell, New Mexico, and operates in a number of states across the country, including Ohio.

    Plaintiff’s attorney Paul Lukas stated, “The law is clear that day rate employees are entitled to additional compensation over and above their day rate pay for overtime hours worked.  Through this lawsuit, we seek to recover the overtime pay they should have been paid under the law.”

    Plaintiffs are represented by Paul J. Lukas from Nichols Kaster, PLLP in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and BOB DeRose from Barkan Meizlish, LLP in Columbus, Ohio.

    The case is entitled, Ganci v. MBF Inspection Services, Inc.. Case No 2:15-cv-2959 (Southern District of Ohio).

    Additional information about how to make a claim in the case may be found at www.nka.com or by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492.

Additional Information

What is This Lawsuit About?

An FLSA lawsuit has been filed against MBF. The welding inspector who brought this case alleges that MBF paid individuals on a day rate under the FLSA and did not properly compensate workers for overtime hours worked. This lawsuit seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees from MBF.

MBF denies these allegations and claims that day rate workers are not entitled to overtime wages or other damages under the FLSA. MBF believes that it fully complied with the FLSA in good faith. Receipt of this notice does not indicate an entitlement to recovery.

Why did I get this Notice?

The Court has made a preliminary determination that all inspection personnel who worked for MBF are similarly situated and should be notified of this lawsuit so that they may participate in it if they wish to. You received a copy of this notice because MBF’s records indicate that you worked there within the past three years.

How Do I Join?

If you are or were an employee of MBF as an inspector and you received a day rate at any time since September 20, 2013, you may join this lawsuit.

The lawyer and firm representing the case’s current named plaintiff, Thomas Ganci, are Matthew C. Helland and Alexander M. Baggio of Nichols Kaster, PLLP, who can be contacted as follows:

Nichols Kaster, PLLP

Attn: Alexander M. Baggio

4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Phone: (612) 256-3200

Fax: (612) 215-6870

Email: forms@nka.com

You can elect, if you wish, to be represented by a lawyer of your choice. If you decide to join this lawsuit and have Nichols Kaster, PLLP represent you, you must fill out and send the enclosed signed Plaintiff Consent Form, postmarked no later than December 12, 2016 via email, fax, or mail to Nichols Kaster, PLLP at the information provided directly above.

If you decide to join this lawsuit and be represented by a lawyer of your choice, that lawyer will have to notify the Court of your intention to join the case no later than December 12, 2016.

Please do not contact the Clerk of Court or offices of the Judge or Magistrate Judge. They are not in a position to answer questions about the case.

What Happens if I Participate?

If you join this case, the attorney(s) you hire will represent you in the course of the lawsuit and in all settlement discussions in connection with this lawsuit. Once you participate in the case, you will be bound by any ruling or judgment by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you join this case, you might be required to respond to written discovery questions and have your deposition taken and/or appear at trial in the Columbus, Ohio area. Also, if you join this lawsuit and the Court ultimately concludes that MBF is the prevailing party, you may or may not be liable for court costs—not including MBF’s attorneys’ and expert fees.

The Nichols Kaster, PLLP law firm has taken this case on a contingency fee basis. This means that if you hire the firm to represent you in this matter, they will only be paid if there is a monetary recovery through a settlement, judgment, or jury award in your favor. If there is a recovery, the Nichols Kaster, PLLP attorneys will receive a part of any judgment or settlement obtained in your favor. You will not have to pay the attorneys out of your own pocket. The details will be fully outlined in a separate fee agreement between you and the Nichols Kaster, PLLP firm if you hire the firm to represent you in this case.

If you hire legal counsel other than the Nichols Kaster, PLLP firm, the matter of your legal fee and the fee’s impact on any settlement, judgment, or jury award in your favor will be determined pursuant to a fee agreement between you and your attorney.

The Court will retain jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of any fees awarded to the attorneys.

What if I choose Not to Participate?

If you do not wish to participate, you will not be affected by any judgment or included in any settlement in this case. You may instead choose to bring your own lawsuit or do nothing. The FLSA has time limits called statutes of limitations. These limitations are tolled when you join a lawsuit. If you do not join the lawsuit or start your own lawsuit, your limitations period will continue to run and eventually your right to bring an action will be time barred.

Can MBF Retaliate Against Me for Participating?

No. The law does not allow employers to retaliate against employees for participating in a lawsuit against them. If you believe MBF is retaliating against you, or if someone is threatening to retaliate against you, please inform your attorney immediately.

The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established. Read full Disclaimer.