Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC
| Decision Date | 25 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 14-1044 JB/KBM,CIV 14-1044 JB/KBM |
| Parties | WILLIAM D. PAYNE; NICOLE PAYNE; LESLIE B. BENSON; KEITH BASTION; JACQUELIN FERNANDEZ-QUEZADA; CASON N. HEARD; GREGORY OLDHAM and SHERRY K. WELCH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT, LLC, and BLAKE A. STAMPER, individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) Defendants Tri-State Careflight, LLC, and Blake A. Stamper's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support, filed on March 1, 2016 (Doc. 110)("Motion for Summary Judgment"); and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Consideration of New Law or New Argument Raised in Defendants' Reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Permit Plaintiff to File a Surreply, filed on May 2, 2016 (Doc. 123)("Motion to Exclude"). The Court held a hearing on August 17, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) whether Congress, by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-65, has preempted the claims of the Plaintiffs William D. Payne, Nicole Payne, Leslie Benson, Keith Bastion, Jacquelin Fernandez-Quezada, Cason N. Heard, Gregory Oldham, and Sherry K. Welch for unpaid compensation, brought in accordance with the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, NMSA §§ 50-4-1 to -33 ("NMMWA"), and New Mexico's common law of unjust enrichment; and (ii) whether the Defendants Tri-State CareFlight, LLC, and Blake A. Stamper, raised a new issue of law in their reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Because congress has not preempted the field of labor regulation for railroad and airline workers, and the present dispute does not involve the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, the Court concludes that the Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the basis of Railway Labor Act preemption. The Court also concludes that the Defendants raised a new issue of law in their reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, to which the Plaintiffs may reply with a surreply should they deem it appropriate.
Tri-State Careflight operates an air ambulance service in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. See Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 1, at 2.1 Tri-State CareFlight operates a fleet of aircraft that it staffs with "pilots and trained medical personnel, including emergency medical technician paramedics ('Flight Paramedics') and registered nurses ('Flight Nurses')." Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 2, at 2. The Federal Aviation Administration has certified Tri-State CareFlight "to operate as an air carrier in accordance with the Federal Aviation Act." Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 3, at 2.
Tri-State CareFlight employed Plaintiff William D. Payne as a flight paramedic, PlaintiffNicole Payne as a flight nurse, and Plaintiff Leslie B. Benson as a pilot. See First Amended Representative Action Complaint for Damages for Violation of New Mexico Minimum Wage Act at 1-5, filed October 28, 2015 (Doc. 68)("Amended Complaint"). Tri-State CareFlight currently employs, or employed, Plaintiff Keith Bastian as a flight paramedic and Plaintiff Sherry Welch as a flight nurse. See Motion for Summary Judgment ¶¶ 4, 8, at 2. Tri-State CareFlight also employs, or employed -- as pilots -- Plaintiffs Cason N. Heard and Gregory Oldham. See Motion for Summary Judgment ¶¶ 6-7, at 2. Last, Tri-State CareFlight employs, or employed, Plaintiff Fernandez-Quezada as a flight nurse. See Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 5, at 2. Regarding Tri-State CareFlight and Stamper, each are, or were, the employers of all of the Plaintiffs within the definition of the NMMWA. See Motion for Summary Judgment ¶ 9, at 2.
This case is a wage-and-hour dispute. See Representative Action Complaint for Damages for Violation of New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and Unjust Enrichment ¶¶ 9-25, at 2-4, filed November 17, 2014 (Doc. 1-1)("First Complaint"). The Plaintiffs seek recovery for themselves -- and all similarly situated Tri-State CareFlight employees employed in New Mexico at any time since June 19, 2009 -- of: (i) unpaid overtime compensation under the NMMWA; and (ii) other unpaid compensation on a theory of unjust enrichment. See First Complaint ¶¶ 26-38, at 3-5.
The original Plaintiffs, W. Payne and N. Payne, filed their case in state court on September 11, 2014. See Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC, D-101-CV-2014-02048 (1st Jud. Dist. Ct., Cnty. of Santa Fe, State of N.M.)(Montes, J.). Tri-State CareFlight and Stamper removed the case to federal court on November 17, 2014. See Notice of Removal, filedNovember 17, 2014 (Doc. 1)("Notice of Removal"). The Defendants invoked diversity jurisdiction, representing that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. See Notice of Removal ¶ 4, at 2.
On August 24, 2015, W. Payne and N. Payne moved to amend their Complaint, filed to: (i) eliminate a claim asserted for compensation for certain travel time; and (ii) to add an additional Plaintiff -- Benson. See Plaintiffs' Amended Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, filed August 24, 2015 (Doc. 44)("First Motion to Amend"). On September 4, 2015, W. Payne and N. Payne filed Plaintiffs' Motion for and Brief in Support of Class Certification, filed September 4, 2015 (Doc. 48)("First Motion for Class Cert.").2 The Court held a hearing on the First Motion to Amend on October 28, 2015. See Clerk's Minutes, filed October 28, 2015 (Doc. 67)("Oct. 28th Clerk's Minutes"). At the October 28, 2015, hearing, the Court granted the First Motion to Amend. See Oct. 28th Clerk's Minutes at 1. The same day as the hearing, W. Payne and N. Payne filed their Amended Complaint, in which W. Payne, N. Payne, and Benson asserted one count against the Defendants for their violation of the NMMWA.3 See Amended Complaint at 1-5.
On November 19, 2015, the Paynes resolved their claims via settlement with theDefendants, in which the Defendants agreed to provide them with full relief under the NMMWA. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 47, filed August 17, 2016 (Doc. 142)("Intervenor MOO"). At some point thereafter, on or around November 19, 2015, Benson signed a global release in an administrative proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA"). See Intervenor MOO at 42. Accordingly, the Court allowed Bastian, Heard, Oldham, Welch, and Fernandez-Quezada to intervene as Plaintiffs in this case pursuant to rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Intervenor MOO at 1-2. The intervenor Plaintiffs have thus taken the place of W. Payne, N. Payne, and Benson, and make their allegations against the Defendants in the Second Amended Complaint. See Second Amended Complaint at 1.
The Defendants now move the Court, pursuant to rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to enter summary judgment in their favor and dismiss all claims in the Second Amended Complaint in their entirety and with prejudice. See Motion for Summary Judgment at 1. The Defendants state that federal law preempts the Plaintiffs' state law claim for the alleged violation of the NMMWA and the state law claim for unjust enrichment. See Motion for Summary Judgment at 1. The Plaintiffs oppose the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and also filed their Motion to Exclude as a result of the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on March 1, 2016. As grounds for their Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendants state that the a federal law that, according to the Defendants, has completely occupied the field of the relevant regulations. Motion for Summary Judgment at 1.
The Motion for Summary Judgment then explains that the National Mediation Board, "a United States government agency that coordinates labor relations for United States airlines and railroads," operating pursuant to Title II of the federal Railway Labor Act, has explicitly held "not only that air ambulance services in general are covered by the RLA but that Tri-State in particular -- that is, the Defendant in this case -- is a common air carrier covered by the RLA." Motion for Summary Judgment at 3 (citing TriState CareFlight LLC, 41 NMB 55 (2014); Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC d/b/a Eagle Airmed of Arizona, 26 NMB 132 (1999); Slavens v. Scenic Aviation, Inc., 221 F.3d 1353 (10th Cir. 2000))(emphases in original). Defendants then argue that, because Tri-State CareFlight is a common carrier covered under the Railway Labor Act, the Railway Labor Act's comprehensive framework for the resolution of labor disputes in the railway and airline industries, including the "prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions," means that "states are barred from attempting to legislate in any aspect of that area of law." Motion for Summary Judgment at 3 (citations omitted)(emphasis in original). The Defendants concede, though, that the "United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has never addressed the specific question of whether the RLA preempts state wage and hour laws with respect to their applicability to covered airlines and railroads." Motion for Summary Judgment at 4 (footnote omitted). Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment explains that "[t]wo other circuit courts of appeals, however, have addressed that issue and concluded that Congress' 'expansive regulation' of carriers in the RLA manifested the 'intent that states be precluded from enacting andenforcing overtime provisions' that purport to apply to such carriers." Motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial