Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC

• Decision Date: 30 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. CIV 14–1044 JB/KBM,CIV 14–1044 JB/KBM
• Citation: 278 F.Supp.3d 1276
• 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, individually, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

278 F.Supp.3d 1276

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, individually, Defendants.

No. CIV 14–1044 JB/KBM

United States District Court, D. New Mexico.

Filed September 30, 2017

Christopher M. Moody, Repps D. Stanford, Alice Kilborn, Moody & Warner, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Charles J. Vigil, Jeffrey L. Lowry, Melanie B. Stambaugh, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Plaintiffs Keith Bastian, Jaqueline Fernandez–Quezada, Cason N. Heard, Gregory Oldham and Sherry K. Welch's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Memorandum in Support, filed December 8, 2016 (Doc. 152)("First Fee Motion"); and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees & Costs, filed March 29, 2017 (Doc. 160)("Supp. Motion"). The Court held a hearing on August 2, 2017. The primary issues are: (i) whether to approve the Plaintiffs' counsel's proposed fee rates, which are higher than the rates that the Court used earlier in the case when calculating fees for the attorneys' work for the Original Plaintiffs¹ ; (ii) whether to reduce the total award, because the Plaintiffs did not respond to an early settlement offer; (iii) whether time that the Plaintiffs' counsel spent calculating damages and communicating with clients is compensable; (iv) whether to reduce one paralegal's fees because her time entries are block billed; and (iv) whether certain costs are compensable, such as travel, ordering transcripts, and using LexisNexis. The Court will award fees as the Motion requests, but will reduce the award by: (i) applying a lower attorneys' fee rate than the Plaintiffs' counsel requested; (ii) lowering the paralegal fees by $2,500.00; and (iii) not awarding costs for LexisNexis. The Court will also adjust the total award request by applying the current gross receipts tax rate. Accordingly, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs' First Fee Motion and Supp. Motion, and award fees and costs in the amount of $182,867.16 ($170,108.99 in fees and costs, and $12,758.17 in tax).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Tri–State Careflight, LLC operates a medical transport service providing services in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. See Second Amended Complaint Representative and Class Action Complaint for Damages for Violations of New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and New Mexico Common Law ¶ 11, at 2, filed January 28, 2016 (Doc. 100)("Second Complaint"). Tri–State CareFlight operates a fleet of aircraft that it staffs with pilots and trained medical personnel. See Second Complaint ¶ 9, at 3. Tri–State Careflight employs or employed Plaintiff Keith Bastian as a flight paramedic; Plaintiffs Jaqueline Fernandez–Quezada and Sherry K. Welch as flight nurses; and Plaintiffs Cason N. Heard and Gregory Oldham as pilots. See First Fee Motion at 2–3; Errata Sheet to Opposed Motion to Intervene as Parties Plaintiff and Class Representatives at 1, filed January 4, 2016 (Doc. 84).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case is a wage-and-hour dispute. See Second Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of: (i) unpaid overtime compensation under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"); and (ii) other unpaid compensation on a theory of unjust enrichment. See Second Complaint ¶¶ 95–128, at 12–18.

The Original Plaintiffs, William D. Payne and Nicole 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., Cty. of Santa Fe, State of N.M., filed September 11, 2014 (Montes, J.). Tri–State CareFlight and Stamper removed the case to federal court on November 17, 2014. See Notice of Removal, filed November 17, 2014 (Doc. 1)("Notice of Removal"). The Defendants invoked the Court's 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 to: (i) eliminate a claim asserted for compensation for certain travel time; and (ii) add an additional Plaintiff—Plaintiff Leslie B. 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"); Notice of Motion Hearing, filed October 16, 2015 (Doc. 64). At the October 28, 2015 hearing, the Court granted the First Motion to Amend. See Oct. 28th Clerk's Minutes at 1; Order at 1, filed March 14, 2016 (Doc. 112). 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 ¶¶ 9–36, at 1–5.

In November, 2015, W. Payne, N. Payne, and Benson each reached resolutions on their respective claims. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 47, filed August 12, 2016 (Doc. 138) ("Intervenor MOO"). The Paynes reached a settlement with the Defendants on November 19, 2015 in which the Defendants agreed to provide them with full relief under the NMMWA. See Intervenor MOO at 47. Benson, meanwhile, signed a global release in an administrative proceeding before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") on or around November 19, 2015. See Intervenor MOO at 42.

In December, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs David and Nicole Payne's Opposed Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Memorandum In Support, filed December 10, 2015 (Doc. 72)("Paynes Fees Motion"). The Plaintiffs asserted that the settlement agreements between the Paynes and the Defendants provides that the Defendants would pay the Paynes' reasonable attorney's fees and costs. See Paynes Fees Motion at 4. The parties disputed whether reasonable attorneys' fees should include fees or costs associated with: (i) work on class certification, class communication, and other class-related activities; and/or (ii) an unsuccessful legal claim. See 2016 WL 5376321, at *1 ; Memorandum Opinion and Order at 1, filed August 17, 2016 (Doc. 142)("Paynes Fees MOO"). The Court granted the Paynes Fees Motion only in part, deciding: (i) to not award any fees for class-related work, and (ii) to reduce the fee award for time spent on an unsuccessful claim. See 2016 WL 5376321, at *12–14 ; Paynes Fees MOO at 26–28. The Court also concluded that a $350.00 per hour rate Mr. Moody and a $300.00 per hour rate for Mr. Stanford were "reasonable for federal court practice in the District of New Mexico," and noted that "the Defendants do not object to the [requested] hourly rates." 2016 WL 5376321, at *13.

With all of W. Payne, N. Payne, and Benson's claims resolved, the Plaintiffs sought to replace them, by way of intervention pursuant to rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Opposed Motion to Intervene as Parties Plaintiff and Class Representatives, filed December 15, 2015 (Doc. 73)("First Intervention Motion"). The Plaintiffs asserted:

[N]one of the currently named Plaintiffs will be able to pursue this matter either individually or on behalf of the putative class members who were deprived of overtime pay pursuant to Defendants' uniform and unlawful overtime policies applicable to flight nurses, flight paramedics and pilots. Intervenors seek to pick up the prosecution of this lawsuit where the current Plaintiffs are soon to depart.

First Intervention Motion at 2.

As the motion to intervene was pending, the Defendants moved 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 Defendants Tri–State Careflight, LLC, and Blake A. Samper's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support at 1, filed March 1, 2016 (Doc. 110)("MSJ"). The Defendants argued that federal law preempts the Plaintiffs' state law claim for the alleged NMMWA violation and the state law claim for unjust enrichment. See MSJ at 1. The Plaintiffs opposed the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and also filed their 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"), as a result of the Defendants' MSJ.

On August 12, 2016, the Court, pursuant to rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, granted the Plaintiffs' First Intervention Motion, permitting Bastian, Heard, Oldham, Welch, and Fernandez–Quezada to intervene as Plaintiffs. See Intervenor MOO at 1–2. The Court determined, among other things, that the resolution of W. Payne, N. Payne, and Benson's claims "did not render this case moot under Article III because the personal stake of the indivisible class may inhere prior to a definitive ruling on class certification." Intervenor MOO at 41 (citing Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1244–47 (10th Cir. 2011) ).

In March, 2016, the Defendants filed the Defendants Tri–State Careflight, LLC, and Blake A. Stamper's Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Supplement their Rule 26 Initial Disclosures and Answer Interrogatories and Respond to Requests for Production,...