Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC
Decision Date | 16 March 2019 |
Docket Number | No. CIV 17-0796 JB\CG,No. CIV 14-1044 JB\KBM,CIV 14-1044 JB\KBM,CIV 17-0796 JB\CG |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Parties | WILLIAM D. PAYNE; NICOLE PAYNE; LESLIE B. BENSON; KEITH BASTIAN; JACQUELINE 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, Defendants. Consolidated with: KRISTY BELL; DEBORAH BEREST; DANIEL BERGMAN; WILLIAM DALLAS BUNDRANT, JR; ROCKY H. BURROWS, II; CHASE CARTER; BRENDA CASAREZ; KARA CERVANTES; THOMAS CISLO; DAVID DANIELS; ADAM DOYLE; DARREN EEN; TOBY EICHER; LON ENOS; WALTER FABIAN; HAROLD JOSEPH FISHER; CHRISTINA FLEEMAN; LUKE FORSLUND; SALUSTIANO FRAGOSO; REHANNON GONZALES; KRISTEN GRADO; COURTNEY GUERRA; DARRIN HAMILTON; ALEXANDER HOWELL; DANIELLE IRVIN; ALLEN JACOBS; ALEX JONES; DONALD LUKE KEENAN; DANIEL KUHLER; SIMON LUCERO; RAPHAEL MAHAIM; NATHAN MAPLESDEN; ORLANDO MARQUEZ; CINDY D. MAXWELL; JENNIFER MAZZANTI; BETHANY MCCANDLESS; WILLIAM J. MCCONNELL; DAN MEEHAN; KEVIN NAPP; JAMES O'CONNOR; KATHY ONSUREZ-WILSON; ERIC PARKER; JASON PERRY; AMANDA PETERSEN; BRENT PLACE; JIMMY RONALD PRIMM, JR; PHILIP QUBAIN; PAUL RATIGAN; JOSEPH ROOT; DARON RUCKMAN; FREDERIC RUEBUSH; JENNIFER SALAVERRY; LAUREN SALAZAR; PAUL SERINO; CHRISTIAN SPEAKMAN; DANIEL ST. PETERS; IAN STEPHENS; USVALDO R. TRUJILLO; PAUL VACULA; GRACIELA VILLALOBOS; ERIC VOGT; GREG WALSH; TYLER WILKINS; VIRGINIA WILLIAMS; SARA YURKOVICH; TERRY ZACHARIAS and MICHAEL ZULASKI, Plaintiffs, v. TRI-STATE CAREFLIGHT, LLC and BLAKE A. STAMPER, Defendants. |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Address Issue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 for Intervenors to Proceed with Third Amended Complaint or, Alternatively Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(B) Motion to Obtain Relief from Final Judgment, filed August 3, 2018 (Doc. 200)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on September 26, 2018. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed September 26, 2018 (Doc. 215). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Basnet Intervenors,1 who intervened in this proposed class action after the Court entered the Final Judgment, filed November 23, 2016 (Doc. 150), for the former named plaintiffs -- the Bastian Plaintiffs2 -- and before the Court certified a class, can prosecute the Third Amended Representative and Class Action Complaint for Damages for Violations of New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and New Mexico Common Law, filed July 19, 2017 (Doc. 177)("Third Amended Complaint"), without seeking relief from the Final Judgment under rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether, if the Basnet Intervenors must seek relief under rule 60, they can obtain relief under rule 60(b)(5), because the Defendants Tri-State Careflight, LLC and Blake Stamper satisfied the Final Judgment for the Bastian Plaintiffs; and (iii) whether, if the Basnet Intervenors must seek relief under rule 60, they can obtain relief under 60(b)(6), because the Final Judgment for the Bastian Plaintiffs and the consequent possibility that the Basnet Intervenors may not receive American Pipe and Construction Company v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974)("AmericanPipe"), tolling on all claims are extraordinary circumstances.3 The Court denies the Motion. The Court concludes: (i) the Basnet Intervenors must seek relief from the Final Judgment under rule 60 before filing the Amended Complaint, because the Basnet Intervenors' putative class interest is not an exception to finality; (ii) the Basnet Intervenors cannot satisfy rule 60(b)(5), because rule 60(b)(5) does not provide relief against finality when a defendant has satisfied a judgment; and (iii) the Basnet Intervenors cannot satisfy rule 60(b)(6), because the Basnet Intervenors could have earlier intervened, and the Final Judgment and the possibility that American Pipe tolling will not apply do not rise to extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the Basnet Intervenors cannot prosecute the Third Amended Complaint.
The Court takes its facts from the Third Amended Complaint. The Court provides these facts for background. It does not adopt them as the truth, and it recognizes that these facts are largely the Basnet Intervenors' version of events.
Tri-State Careflight operates an air ambulance service in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. See Third Amended Complaint ¶ 11, at 4. Tri-State CareFlight employs flight paramedics, flight nurses, and pilots at each of its New Mexico location. See Third Amended Complaint ¶ 81, at 9. The Defendants are or were all the Basnet Intervenors' employers within the definition provided in the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-4-1 through -33 ("NMMWA"). See Third Amended Complaint ¶ 6, at 3. Tri-State CareFlight employs or employed the following people as pilots, nurses, or paramedics: Shailendra Basnet, Kristy Bell,Deborah Berest, Daniel Bergman, William Dallas Bundrant, Jr., Rocky H. Burrows, II, Chase Carter, Brenda Casarez, Michael Castro, Kara Cervantes, Thomas Cislo, David Daniels, Adam Doyle, Darren Een, Toby Eicher, Walter Fabian, Harold Joseph Fisher, Christina Fleeman, Luke Forslund, Salustiano Fragoso, Rehannon Gonzales, Kristen Grado, Courtney Guerra, Darrin Hamilton, Shane Herron, Alexander Howell, Danielle Irvin, Allen Jacobs, Erin Johnson, Alex Jones, Donald Luke Keenan, Daniel Kuhler, Simon Lucero, Raphael Mahaim, Nathan Maplesden, Cindy D. Maxwell, Jennifer Mazzanti, Bethany McCandless, Ron McDearmid, Dan Meehan, Kevin Napp, James O'Connor, Kathy Onsurez-Wilson, Eric Parker, Jason Perry, Amanda Petersen, Brent Place, Jimmy Ronald Primm, Jr., Philip Qubain, Paul Ratigan, Joseph Root, Daron Ruckman, Frederic Ruebush, Jennifer Salaverry, Paul Serino, Christian Speakman, Ian Stephens, Daniel St. Peters, Usvaldo R. Trujillo, Paul Vacula, Jennifer Valdez, Graciela Villalobos, Eric Vogt, Greg Walsh, Tyler Wilkins, Virginia Williams, Terry Zacharias, and Michael Zulaski. See Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 12-80, at 4-9.
This case has a long and complicated procedural history. The Court recited this procedural history in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, 327 F.R.D. 433, filed June 21, 2018 (Doc. 198)("Consolidation MOO"). The Court incorporates that recitation throughout the procedural background that the Court provides below. The Court also includes footnotes from the Consolidation MOO.
This case is a wage-and-hour dispute. See Third Amended Complaint ¶ 1, at 2. The Plaintiffs seek to recover: (i) unpaid overtime compensation under the NMMWA; and (ii) otherunpaid compensation on a theory of unjust enrichment. See Third Amended Complaint ¶¶ 95-128, at 12-18.
To continue reading
Request your trial