Evans v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 92

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 70 plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Neville to submit an amended motion for class certification that includes discussion of that case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHARDE EVANS,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:10-CV-1224 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
WAL-MART STORE, INC.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is plaintiff Charde Evans’ renewed motion for class certification.

14

(ECF No. 70). On January 13, 2017, defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”) moved for a

15

temporary stay of proceedings. (ECF No. 86).

16

In that motion, Walmart identified a case, Neville v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the

17

State of Nevada, No. 70696, that had “been referred to the en banc panel [of the Nevada Supreme

18

Court] for a decision on the merits.” (Id. at 2). Walmart argued that case is relevant here because

19

petitioner’s second question in Neville is the same one at issue in this case. (Id.) (“That question,

20

of course, is the exact same one upon which Ms. Evans seeks to proceed here—arguing that Wal-

21

Mart can be held liable for failing to pay her and the putative class waiting-time penalties under

22

N.R.S. §§ 608.040 and 608.050.”).

23

On February 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach granted Walmart’s motion for a

24

temporary stay, finding that “[t]his court will be bound by the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision

25

in Neville. If the Nevada Supreme Court decides there is no private cause of action, Evans will

26

not have a waiting time penalties claim irrespective of the Ninth Circuit’s determination that

27

overtime pay is a form of wages.” (ECF No. 91 at 4) (citation omitted).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2

Consequently, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach stayed the instant case until the Nevada
Supreme Court decides Neville. (Id.).

3

Thus, productive argument in this case will require discussion of—and citation to—the

4

Nevada Supreme Court’s impending decision in Neville. Therefore, this court will deny the

5

unadjudicated renewed motion for class certification. (ECF No. 70); see also Thompson v. Hous.

6

Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“District courts have inherent

7

power to control their dockets.”). Plaintiff will have twenty-one (21) days from the date of the

8

Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in that case to resubmit an amended motion for class

9

certification. The deadlines to submit any responses or replies in relation to that motion will

10

comply with the terms of Local Rule 7-2(b).

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s renewed motion

13

for class certification (ECF No. 70) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date

15

of the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Neville to submit an amended motion for class

16

certification that includes discussion of that case.

17
18
19

DATED July 20, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-