Evans v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:10-CV-1224 JCM (VCF)
WAL-MART STORE, INC.,
Presently before the court is plaintiff Charde Evans’ renewed motion for class certification.
(ECF No. 70). On January 13, 2017, defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Walmart”) moved for a
temporary stay of proceedings. (ECF No. 86).
In that motion, Walmart identified a case, Neville v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the
State of Nevada, No. 70696, that had “been referred to the en banc panel [of the Nevada Supreme
Court] for a decision on the merits.” (Id. at 2). Walmart argued that case is relevant here because
petitioner’s second question in Neville is the same one at issue in this case. (Id.) (“That question,
of course, is the exact same one upon which Ms. Evans seeks to proceed here—arguing that Wal-
Mart can be held liable for failing to pay her and the putative class waiting-time penalties under
N.R.S. §§ 608.040 and 608.050.”).
On February 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach granted Walmart’s motion for a
temporary stay, finding that “[t]his court will be bound by the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision
in Neville. If the Nevada Supreme Court decides there is no private cause of action, Evans will
not have a waiting time penalties claim irrespective of the Ninth Circuit’s determination that
overtime pay is a form of wages.” (ECF No. 91 at 4) (citation omitted).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Consequently, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach stayed the instant case until the Nevada
Supreme Court decides Neville. (Id.).
Thus, productive argument in this case will require discussion of—and citation to—the
Nevada Supreme Court’s impending decision in Neville. Therefore, this court will deny the
unadjudicated renewed motion for class certification. (ECF No. 70); see also Thompson v. Hous.
Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“District courts have inherent
power to control their dockets.”). Plaintiff will have twenty-one (21) days from the date of the
Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in that case to resubmit an amended motion for class
certification. The deadlines to submit any responses or replies in relation to that motion will
comply with the terms of Local Rule 7-2(b).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s renewed motion
for class certification (ECF No. 70) 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.
DATED July 20, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?