695 F.Supp.3d 1273
D.N.M.2023Background:
- Wexford Health provides healthcare services to correctional facilities and employs non-exempt workers paid hourly.
- In December 2021 Wexford’s Kronos timekeeping system suffered a ransomware-related outage and failed for a period to record employee hours, including overtime.
- On November 17, 2022 Sandra Solis sued Wexford: an individual FLSA overtime claim plus a New Mexico class seeking NMMWA overtime, treble damages, fees, and a state-law unjust enrichment claim on behalf of New Mexico non-exempt employees affected by the outage.
- Wexford filed an initial motion to dismiss aimed at collective/FLSA claims, then an amended motion targeting the class claims; Solis disputed the procedural propriety of the amendment.
- The Court treated the amended motion as a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings and addressed Wexford’s substantive argument that the case should be dismissed under the federal first-to-file rule because a prior Pennsylvania nationwide FLSA suit (Surles) was pending.
- The Court denied both motions, holding the first-to-file rule did not require dismissal because Solis’s New Mexico statutory and common-law claims differ materially from the Pennsylvania FLSA collective and afford protections not available there.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural: Was Wexford’s amended motion improper under Rule 12(g) or permissible? | Solis: Wexford should have sought leave; successive Rule 12 motions barred. | Wexford: Amendment was a non-substantive correction and acceptable. | Court: Construes the amended motion as a Rule 12(c) motion and proceeds; any procedural error is harmless. |
| First-to-file: Should this court dismiss under the first-to-file rule because Surles (PA) was filed earlier? | Solis: New Mexico class asserts state-law claims (NMMWA, unjust enrichment) distinct from the Pennsylvania FLSA collective; New Mexico class needs forum to vindicate state-law rights. | Wexford: Surles is earlier and involves same defendant, same factual basis, and overlapping class of employees, so first-to-file favors dismissal. | Court: Denies dismissal; although chronology and parties favor Surles, difference in claims (state-law NMMWA and unjust enrichment vs FLSA) is dispositive. |
| Factual overlap: Does overlapping factfinding (hours/worked) mean first-to-file should apply despite different laws? | Solis: Factual overlap does not erase the distinct legal protections of New Mexico law. | Wexford: Much proof will be identical; deference to the earlier-filed case is warranted. | Court: Rejects that factual overlap alone overcomes plaintiff’s choice of forum and distinct legal claims; declines to apply first-to-file. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wakaya Perfection, LLC v. Youngevity Int’l, Inc., 910 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2018) (articulates three-factor first-to-file analysis: chronology, parties, similarity of issues/claims)
- Albers v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Jefferson Cnty., Colo., 771 F.3d 697 (10th Cir. 2014) (treats consideration of successive Rule 12 motions as harmless where court could construe as Rule 12(c))
- Estate of Stevens ex rel. Collins v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Cnty. of San Juan, 53 F. Supp. 3d 1368 (D.N.M. 2014) (motions to dismiss and Rule 12(c) motions are functionally equivalent and reviewed under the same standards)