Unite Here Health v. Desert Palace Inc et al
Filing
71
ORDER Granting 38 Joint Motion to Reopen Case and 54 Motion to Consolidate Cases. This case is consolidated with 2:13-cv-01571-JAD-NJK. Case No. 2:13-cv-00069-GMN-PAL shall serve as the lead case. The pending motion in 2:13-cv-01571-JAD -NJK is Denied without prejudice. Specifically, the Second Motion for Judgment (ECF No. 17) filed by Plaintiffs is Denied with leave to re-file in the lead case 2:13-cv-00069-GMN-PAL. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/17/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
UNITE HERE HEALTH, by and through its
fiduciary, Matthew Walker,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
DESERT PALACE, INC. dba CAESARS
)
PALACE, a Nevada corporation; BISTRO
)
CENTRAL, LV, LLC dba CENTRAL 24/7, a )
Nevada limited liability company; CARL
)
HALVORSON, individually; JOHN DOES I- )
X, inclusive, ROE ENTITIES I-X, inclusive, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No.: 2:13-cv-00069-GMN-PAL
2:-cv-0-GMNORDER
Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 38) that was
13
14
jointly filed by Plaintiff Unite Here Health (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Desert Palace, Inc.
15
(“Caesars”) (collectively, the “Joint Movants”). No opposition was filed.
Also pending before the Court is the Motion to Consolidate Cases (ECF No. 54) filed by
16
17
Plaintiff. None of the Defendants filed an opposition.
18
I.
19
JOINT MOTION TO REOPEN CASE
Previously, the Court entered a stipulated order in which Plaintiff and Defendant Bistro
20
Central, LV (“Defendant Bistro”) stipulated to Judgment and Stay of Execution pending
21
payment by Bistro of Plaintiff’s claims. (Consent J., ECF No. 33.) Unfortunately, Defendant
22
Bistro failed to pay according to the payment plan in the Consent Judgment. As a result, the
23
Joint Movants request that the Court reopen the case to provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to
24
litigate its claims against Caesars and to provide Caesars an opportunity to litigate its cross-
25
claims.
Page 1 of 3
Although Joint Movants styled this as a “joint” motion, they also indicated that
1
2
Defendant Bistro Central, LV and Defendant Carl Halvorson declined to approve the motion to
3
reopen the case. Plaintiff and Caesars filed this motion on September 23, 2013, and the time to
4
file an opposition to the motion has long passed. (See Joint Mot. to Reopen Case, ECF No. 38
5
(providing a response deadline of October 10, 2013).) Nevertheless, neither Defendant Bistro
6
Central, LV nor Defendant Carl Halvorson filed an opposition to this motion.
Local Rule 7-2(d) provides that “[t]he failure of an opposing party to file points and
7
8
authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”
9
D. Nev. R. LR 7-2(d). Accordingly, given that no opposition was filed to this motion and for
10
good cause appearing, the Court will grant the joint motion to reopen the case.
11
II.
12
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
The Court first notes that, as with the Joint Motion to Reopen Case, none of the
13
Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion to Consolidate. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule
14
7-2(d), Defendants have consented to the granting of this Motion. See D. Nev. R. LR 7-2(d)
15
(“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion shall
16
constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”).
17
However, even in the absence of Local Rule 7-2(d), the Court finds good cause for
18
consolidation pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 42(a)
19
authorizes a court to consolidate actions that involve “common questions of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
20
P. 42(a). If the Court determines that common questions of law or fact are present, the Court
21
must then balance the savings of time and effort that consolidation will produce against any
22
inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result. Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d
23
703, 704 (1989).
24
25
Here, both cases involve “multi-employer employee benefit trust funds asserting claims
under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g) & 1145 to collect unpaid employee fringe benefit contributions.”
Page 2 of 3
1
(Mot. for Consolidation 7:1–3, ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff further asserts that “the allegations in
2
[the two cases] pertain to the same employers and defendants and relate to the same employees
3
who performed covered labor.” (Id. at 7:13–14. See generally id at 7:5–21.) Thus, the Court
4
finds that these cases involve the same questions of law and fact. Furthermore, the Court
5
cannot find any reason that consolidation would cause prejudice to Defendants. Therefore, the
6
Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases. (ECF NO. 54.)
7
III.
8
9
10
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 38) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate (ECF No. 54) is
11
GRANTED. This case (2:13-cv-00069-GMN-PAL) is consolidated with Southern Nevada
12
Culinary and Bartenders Pension Trust et al. v. Desert Palace, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-
13
01571-JAD-NJK. This case, Unite Here Health v. Desert Palace, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-
14
cv-00069-GMN-PAL, shall serve as the lead case.
15
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motion in Southern Nevada Culinary
16
and Bartenders Pension Trust, et al. v. Desert Palace, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01571-
17
JAD-NJK is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Specifically, the Second Motion for
18
Judgment (ECF No. 17) filed by Plaintiffs is DENIED with leave to re-file in the lead case,
19
2:13-cv-00069-GMN-PAL.
20
DATED this _____ day of April, 2014.
17
21
22
23
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
24
25
Page 3 of 3
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?