Collins v. Landry's, Inc.

Filing 69

ORDER Denying Defendant's 60 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

Case No. 2:13-cv-01674-RFB-VCF
ALEXZANDRIA COLLINS,

ORDER

10
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13
14
15

Motion for Reconsideration

LANDRY’S, INC.,
Defendant.
_________________________________________

16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

18

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying

19

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60). For the reasons stated below, the

20

Motion is denied.

21
22
23
24
25

II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her Complaint on July 18, 2012. ECF No. 1. Defendant filed an answer and

counterclaim on September 26, 2012. ECF Nos. 9 and 10. Defendant submitted its Motion for

26
27
28

Summary Judgment on May 18, 2015. The Court held a hearing on March 23, 2016. ECF No. 50.
At the hearing, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion. Id. The Court issued an Order explaining its

1

summary judgment ruling on August 19, 2016. ECF No. 59. Defendant filed the instant Motion

2

for Reconsideration on September 2, 2016. ECF No. 60. The Court denied the Motion for

3

Reconsideration in a minute order on September 30, 2017. This Order now clarifies the Court’s

4
5

reasoning.

6
7

III.

8
9

LEGAL STANDARD
“As long as a district court has jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the inherent

procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to

10
11

be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885

12

(9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and citation omitted). However, “a motion for reconsideration

13

should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented

14

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

15

controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880

16
17

(9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation and citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not

18

be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have

19

been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.

20
21

IV.

DISCUSSION

22
23

Defendant argues that the Court misconstrued certain facts in its Order and did not properly

24

apply the relevant legal standards, such that summary judgment should have been granted in its

25

favor. Having reviewed the record, the Court will not reconsider its Order.

26

Defendant takes issue with certain undisputed facts found by the Court. Defendant argues

27

it is not undisputed that Plaintiff’s shifts were cut. However, Defendant’s own Motion for
_
Summary Judgment states that it is undisputed that “[e]very SHe Nightclub employees’ hours were

28

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

decreasing.” ECF No. 43 at 5. Defendant also argues that “[t]he presentation of this fact in the
undisputed section also improperly connotes that Plaintiff’s complaint to her supervisor preceded
any purported scheduling reduction.” ECF No. 60 at 6. The Court did not make any undisputed
factual findings in its Order regarding the timing of Plaintiff’s complaints in comparison to a
decrease in hours or whether Plaintiff was treated differently than other employees a result of her
complaints. Defendant is free to make arguments at trial regarding the degree to which Plaintiff’s
hours were decreased, the reasons for the decrease in hours and for her termination, whether
Plaintiff was treated differently than other employees, and whether the timing of the complaints,
changes in hours, and termination support the conclusion that Plaintiff was discriminated or
retaliated against.
Defendant also argues that the Court improperly applied the summary judgment standard
because the facts do not support denial of summary judgment on the Title VII and §1981
discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, or wrongful termination claims. Nothing in
Defendant’s Motion has persuaded the Court that it committed clear error, such that it would
reconsider its rulings on these claims. Marlyn Nutraceuticals,571 F.3d at 880. The Court finds that
there is a question of fact regarding whether Plaintiff was terminated because of poor performance
and declining business, or whether Defendant’s articulated reasons are pretextual. There is a
question of fact regarding what Defendant did to address Hensley’s derogatory behavior. There is
a question of fact regarding whether Plaintiff’s hours were decreased and she was terminated in
retaliation for protected activity. There is a question of fact regarding whether Theobold, the person
who terminated Plaintiff, was aware of Plaintiff’s complaints. Each of these questions requires a
searching factual inquiry that is best decided by a jury. The Court will not reconsider its decision
to allow these claims to proceed to trial.
Finally, even if some of the facts in the undisputed fact section of the Court’s order are
disputed, the Court finds that the consideration of the facts as disputed would not alter the Court’s
ultimate determination in this case.

27
28

-3-

1

V.

CONCLUSION

2
3
4
5

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) is DENIED.

6
7

DATED: June 12, 2018.

8
9
__________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-