Greene v. Alan Waxler Group Charter Services, LLC

Filing 94

ORDER Denying without Prejudice 70 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Denying without Prejudice 73 MOTION to Certify Class, and Denying without Prejudice 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4

KYLE SMITH, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9692
SMITH LAW OFFICE
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
T: [phone]
F: [phone]

JASON KULLER, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12244
MARK THIERMAN, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 8285
THIERMAN LAW FIRM P.C.
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
T: [phone]
F: [phone]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
ROBERT GREENE, on behalf of himself and )
) Greene v. Alan Waxler Charter Services
all others similarly situated,
) Case No.: 2:09-CV-00748-JCM-RJJ
Plaintiffs,
)
) Consolidated with:
v.
) Baum, et. al. v. Alan Waxler, et. al.
) Case No.: 2:09-CV-0914-LDG-PAL
ALAN WAXLER GROUP CHARTER
)
SERVICES, LLC dba AWG CHARTER
)
SERVICES, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company, Does 1-50, inclusive,
)
) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
Defendants
) MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
) JUDGEMENT and MOTION TO
SAM BAUM, et al.,
) CERTIFY CLASS WITHOUT
) PREJUDICE
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ALAN WAXLER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

23
24
25

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion for Class Certification (Doc. #73),
Defendant AWG’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc. #70), and Plaintiffs’ Cross-

26
27
28

Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc.#82), with Plaintiffs represented by Jason Kuller,
Esq. and Kyle Smith, Esq., and Norman Kirshman appearing on behalf of Defendant

Page 1 of 3

1

AWG. The Court having considered the pleadings, evidence, and arguments of counsel

2

presented at hearing on these matters on November 30, 2011, and good cause appearing,

3

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT:

4

1. Plaintiffs’ Joint Motion to Certify Class (Doc. #73) is DENIED without

5
6
7
8
9
10

prejudice. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate numerosity
of class members at this stage.
2. Defendant AWG’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #70) is DENIED
without prejudice.

The Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated

entitlement to the Motor Carrier Act exemption in light of the Safe,

11
12

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

13

(“SAFETY-LU”) and the SAFETY-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.

14

The Court further finds that Plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action under NRS §§

15
16

608.016, 608.040, and the Nevada State Constitution art. 15, § 16(B), are viable
as a matter of law. Otherwise, the Court finds fact issues remain precluding

17
18

summary adjudication.

19

3. Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Adjudication (Doc. #82) is DENIED

20

without prejudice. Although the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ state-law claims are

21

legally viable, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated their entitlement to summary

22

adjudication on these claims.
23
24

DATED this 14th day of December, 2011.
20

25
26

___________________________
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
JAMES C. MAHAN

27
28

Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

Respectfully submitted & reviewed by:
By: /s/ Kyle Smith
KYLE SMITH, ESQ.
NV Bar No. 9692
10161 Park Run Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Baum, et al.

7
8
9
10
11

By:/s/ Jason Kuller
MARK THIERMAN, ESQ.
JASON KULLER, ESQ.
Thierman Law Firm, P.C.
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Attorney for Plaintiff Greene

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 3 of 3