West v. Bam! Pizza Management, Inc.
1:22-cv-00209
D.N.M.Jun 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs sued Bam! Pizza Management, Inc. and others for alleged wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
- Named plaintiff Lynne Balderson filed a consent to join the FLSA collective action on March 19, 2023.
- After Balderson’s death on August 17, 2023—but before she was added as a named plaintiff to Texas state law claims—plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to add her as a named plaintiff and Texas law claims.
- The amended complaint, filed in February 2024, included Balderson as a named plaintiff solely for the Texas claims, but she had already passed away.
- Defendants filed a Suggestion of Death in October 2024, and the plaintiffs moved to extend time to substitute a party for Balderson under Rule 25 and Rule 6.
- The district court previously denied the extension, but plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, disputing the prior order’s treatment of FLSA opt-in status and Rule 25 applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 25 substitution allowed for FLSA claim of deceased opt-in plaintiff | Balderson was a party to FLSA claim due to opt-in status, so substitution is proper | Balderson was not a party before death in the amended complaint | Substitution permitted for FLSA claim; reconsideration granted |
| Whether Rule 25 permits substitution for Texas state law claims filed after death | Balderson’s estate should substitute because claims were in process before her death | Balderson died before joining as to Texas claims, so substitution is not allowed | No substitution for Texas law claims; reconsideration denied |
| When deadline to move for substitution under Rule 25 starts | Begin when suggestion of death is served on the successor | Not addressed as a core dispute | Court clarifies 90-day period starts only after proper service |
| Whether FLSA opt-in is sufficient for party status pre-amendment | FLSA opt-in makes one a party plaintiff as of consent filing | Disagreed; focused on amended complaint timing | Court recognizes opt-in as conferring party plaintiff status |
Key Cases Cited
- Esposito v. United States, 368 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2004) (discussing substitution under Rule 25 and party status)
- Mickles v. Country Club, Inc., 887 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2018) (holding FLSA opt-in plaintiffs become parties upon consent filing)