Contact Us Today

Online Form

P (513) 202-0710


Bam! Pizza Management Domino’s Vehicle Expense Reimbursement Dispute

Delivery Drivers

If you work or worked for Bam! And want to learn more about the allegations made against them, please contact our firm at 513-202-0710 or by completing a contact form on this website.

Read Full Case Details

Join This Case

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Case Details


Biller & Kimble first sued Bam! Pizza Management in October 2021, in a case called Wright, et al. v. Bam! Pizza Management, et al., No. 3:21-cv-1655 (N.D. Texas). But, shortly after the case was filed, Bam! Informed us that the named plaintiff in that case had signed an “arbitration agreement” with a class action waiver. Learn more about arbitration agreements here.

In March of 2022, our firm filed another class action lawsuit against the Bam! Pizza Management stores. This case was filed in New Mexico. West v. Bam! Pizza Management, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00209-LF-JHR (D. New Mexico).

In addition to these two lawsuits, our firm is also pursuing multiple individual arbitrations on behalf of pizza delivery drivers against Bam!

West v Bam!, like the many similar pizza delivery driver lawsuits around the country, alleges that the company under-pays its delivery drivers for the costs the drivers take on when they use their car for the company’s purposes, i.e., to make deliveries. Specifically, the drivers claim that the company reimburses a per-deliver amount (ex., $1.00 per delivery) that is not enough to cover the drivers’ vehicle expenses. The plaintiff alleges that this under-reimbursement results in a minimum wage or other wage and hour violation.

The Claims

Under-reimbursement of Vehicle Expenses

First, the plaintiff alleges that the company does not properly reimburse for vehicle expenses.

The drivers’ position is that they must be reimbursed at the IRS standard business mileage rate (currently $.585 per mile) when the employer does not collect records of the drivers’ actual expenses and reimburse based on those records.

Even if the company is permitted to reimburse based on an “approximation,” as we expect the defendants will argue, the plaintiff alleges that the Bam! Pizza Management Domino’s stores have failed to “reasonably approximate.”

Plaintiff alleges that this practice violates the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage law, NM Stat. §50-4-21, et seq.

 Unjust Enrichment

In addition, the plaintiff asserts a claim for unjust enrichment. She alleges that the Bam! Pizza Management stores unfairly benefit by requiring their minimum wage delivery drivers to cover one of their most costly business expenses without proper reimbursement. The drivers are conferring a benefit on the company, the company is aware of the benefit, and it would be unjust for the company to retain that benefit without commensurate compensation.

Update 04-12-2024

The parties agreed to stay the case and attend a mediation in an effort to resolve the claims asserted without further litigation. The Court entered the parties stipulation and ordered the case to be stayed until August 15, 2024. During the stay, the parties will exchange relevant information needed to negotiate and will attend a mediation with an experienced mediator. Currently, the mediation is expected to take place in late July. We will provide another status update following the mediation to let everyone know the outcome and what to expect next.

Update 02-20-2024

The Court issued its decision on the first of the three pending motions. First up was Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to add additional claims. After employees who worked in Colorado and Texas joined the case as opt in plaintiffs, the Plaintiff asked the Court if she could amend her Complaint to add state law claims arising under Colorado and Texas laws. The additional claims sought to be added included claims for illegal deductions and missed meal and rest breaks for those who worked in Colorado, and for unjust enrichment for those who worked in either Colorado or Texas. The Court ruled in our favor, granting the Plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint to add class representatives for the employees who worked for Defendants in Colorado and Texas. In the decision, the Court rejected each of the Defendants’ arguments against the additional claims the plaintiff sought to add. Following the ruling, the Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint.

Update 10-22-2023

The Court held a scheduling hearing on August 3, 2023 to address the parties’ plan for the discovery phase of the litigation. Rather than adopt a scheduling order, however, the Court decided to set a briefing schedule for the parties to submit their legal arguments on the main issue underlying the claims against the company, which is how an employer must reimburse an employee for the vehicle expenses when they haven’t maintained records of the actual expenses. The Plaintiff argues that the Court should defer to the reasoned approach explained in the Department of Labor’s longstanding Field Operations Handbook, which says that an employer’s minimum wage compliance can be measured by reference to the IRS standard business mileage rate in the absence of actual expense records. The Defendants argue that the words “reasonable approximate” found in a regulation that explains how to calculate the regular rate for overtime purposes allows them to decide for themselves what a reasonable approximate of the drivers’ actual costs is. The parties have submitted their legal briefs, though there is no way of knowing when the Court will issue a decision. Until the decision is made, the Court has instructed that the parties are not to proceed with discovery.

Update 08-26-2022

Judge Urias held a hearing on the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Parties presented oral argument in support of their positions and answered questions regarding the law and facts of the case. At the close of the hearing, Judge Urias ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Plaintiff actually signed the arbitration agreement and agreed with Plaintiff that she is entitled to a jury trial to decide that issue. The Court scheduled a jury trial for December 5, 2022.

Update 07-07-2022

Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion to Compel Arbitration.

Update 06-23-2022

Plaintiff filed her Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration. This Response argues that the Court should not enforce the arbitration agreement that Defendants’ claim the Plaintiff’s signed for four reasons:

(1) The Plaintiff denies that she ever saw or signed the arbitration agreement;

(2) The Defendants’ waived the right to arbitration by delaying for over two months before moving to compel arbitration;

(3) The arbitration agreement is unenforceable for minimum wage claims because courts or the Department of Labor must approve private settlements of FLSA rights; and

(4) the arbitration agreement is unconscionable.

Update 05-26-2022

Defendants filed an Answer asserting defenses to liability as well as objections. In their Answer, the Defendants informed the Court that there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the parties that requires individual arbitration.

Update 03-26-2022

Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the Plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver when she was hired to work for them.

Update 03-22-2022

Plaintiff filed her Motion to Send Notice to Similarly Situated Employees. This Motion asks the Court to authorize a notice be mailed to all of Bam!’s pizza delivery drivers informing them of the lawsuit and giving them the opportunity to join the case if they so choose.

Update 03-21-2022

Lawsuit filed against Bam! Pizza Management.

Client Reviews

"I highly recommend Biller & Kimble"


They did excellent work on a class action suit I was involved with against Dominos. I was in frequent contact with Phil and he was always good in getting back to me if I had any questions about the case and recommendations about litigation.

– Ben B.

"Representation with the utmost integrity."


Andrew Kimble provides legal counsel and representation with the utmost integrity. I know this from personal experience. Also, he treated me with respect. He was thorough in explaining details of the case and always willing to answer my questions. I am extremely grateful for everything he has done for me.

– Desera S.

"Very professional and always friendly."


These guys are the best!! Very professional and always friendly and keep you updated on your case ! When I found the amount I was receiving I was very pleased! Thanks guys

– Travis J.

"They are amazing!"


Man, I didn’t realize a company was screwing up my pay. Biller and Kimble LLC were on it, and got me a nice 4 figure check that I wasn’t even expecting! They are amazing!!!

– Jarvis K.

"I definitely recommend them!"


They did a great job and got me every penny that dominos owed me! I definitely recommend them!

– Brittany K.

"[She] was such a pleasure to work with."


I’m super thankful for getting to work with Emily from Biller & Kimble. She was really helpful and explained every detail so I could understand everything that was going on with the case. She did everything for the best interest of me and was such a pleasure to work with. Thank you so much!

– Rachel H.