Cardoza et al v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc. et al

Filing 122

ORDER Denying without prejudice 103 Plaintiffs' Motion to Equitably Toll the Statute of Limitations. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/28/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

Brooke Cardoza et al.,

10

Plaintiffs

11
12

v.
Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., et al.,

13

Case No.2:13-cv-01820-JAD-NJK
Order Denying Motion to Equitably
Toll Statute of Limitations [Doc. 103]

Defendants

14
15

This case arises out of alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state

16

laws for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay. Plaintiffs allege that defendants paid no

17

wages for unlawfully- required off-the-clock work, did not pay employees for overtime work, and

18

did not pay minimum required wages to many thousands of minimum-wage employees. They bring

19

a collective action under the FLSA and class action claims under various state laws.

20

Plaintiffs move to equitably toll the statute of limitations under the FLSA for all named and

21

potential opt-in plaintiffs who join this litigation.1 Defendants oppose the motion arguing that

22

Plaintiffs essentially “seek a tolling order to prevent future, hypothetical harm to non-parties” and

23

that the motion is “unfounded, premature, and tantamount to an advisory opinion.”2 I find the

24

motion appropriate for disposition without oral argument under Local Rule 78-2 and deny it without

25

prejudice.

26
27

1

Doc. 103.

28

2

Doc. 107.

1

Discussion

2

The Ninth Circuit has recognized the doctrine of equitable tolling of an FLSA claim.3

3

Equitable tolling “applies when the plaintiff is prevented from asserting a claim by wrongful conduct

4

on the part of the defendant, or when extraordinary circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control

5

made it impossible to file a claim on time.”4 The doctrine applies only in “rare and exceptional

6

circumstances”5 and should be applied sparingly.6

7

Plaintiffs’ request is premature. They have not identified any person who was prevented

8

from asserting a claim because of defendants’ wrongful conduct or any extraordinary circumstances

9

beyond any person’s control that made it impossible to file a claim timely. As plaintiffs have not

10

demonstrated that any grant—let alone a broad grant—of equitable tolling is warranted at this time,

11

plaintiffs’ motion is denied as premature and without prejudice.

12
13
14
15

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Equitably Toll the Statute of
Limitations [Doc. 103] is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED July 28, 2014.

16
17
_________________________________
_____________________
_ _______ _ __
Jennifer A. Dorsey
Jennifer A. Dorsey
n
e
United States District Judge
ed States District Jud
d
trict

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3

25

Partlow v. Lewis Orphans’ Home, Inc., 645 F.2d 757, 760 (9th Cir. 1981), abrogated on other
grounds by Hoffman–La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989).

26

4

Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999).

27

5

Teemac v. Henderson, 298 F.3d 452, 457 (5th Cir. 2002).

28

6

Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2000).