Hanks, et al. v. Briad Restaurant Group, LLC

Filing 136

ORDER that 130 Joint Motion for Certification of Question of Law to the Nevada Supreme Court is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 132 Stipulation for Temporary Stay of Briefing Deadlines is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/1/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

ERIN HANKS, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4

Plaintiffs,

5

vs.

6

BRIAD RESTAURANT GROUP, L.L.C.,
7

Defendant.

8

Case No.: 2:14-cv-00786-GMN-PAL
ORDER

9

Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion for Certification of Question of Law to the

10
11

Nevada Supreme Court, (ECF No. 130), filed by Plaintiffs Erin Hanks, Jeffrey Anderson, and

12

Robert Baker (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Briad Restaurant Group, LLC

13

(“Defendant”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Joint Motion.

14

I.

BACKGROUND
This case arises out of alleged violations of an amendment to the Nevada Constitution

15
16

setting certain minimum wage requirements for employers (the “Minimum Wage

17

Amendment”). Plaintiffs are employees of the restaurant chain TGI Friday’s and work at

18

several of the chain’s various locations throughout Nevada. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 6).

19

Plaintiffs allege that this action “is a result of [Defendant’s] failure to pay Plaintiffs and other

20

similarly-situated employees who are members of the Class the lawful minimum wage, because

21

[Defendant] improperly claimed eligibility to compensate employees at a reduced minimum

22

wage rate under Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16.” (Id. ¶ 2).1

23
24
25

1

The Nevada Constitution provides in pertinent part:
Each employer shall pay a wage to each employee of not less than the hourly rates set forth in
this section. The rate shall be five dollars and fifteen cents ($5.15) per hour worked, if the
employer provides health benefits as described herein, or six dollars and fifteen cents ($6.15) per

Page 1 of 5

1

On September 15, 2015, the Court granted a temporary stay of the case pending

2

resolution of a certified question to the Nevada Supreme Court, denying with leave to refile the

3

parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. (Orders, ECF Nos. 118, 123). On October 27, 2016,

4

the Nevada Supreme Court answered the certified question. See MDC Rests., LLC v. Eighth

5

Judicial Dist. Court of State in & for County of Clark, 383 P.3d 262, 265 (Nev. 2016). In light

6

of this ruling, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion to Certify Class, (ECF No. 127), on December

7

15, 2016, and Defendants filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 128), the

8

next day. Shortly thereafter, the parties filed the instant Joint Motion for Certification of a

9

Question of Law, (ECF No. 130), asking the Court to certify an additional question to the

10

Nevada Supreme Court:
What constitutes “health benefits” offered by an employer for
purposes of paying below the upper-tier minimum hourly wage rate
under Nev. Const. art XV, sec 16(A)?

11
12
13
14

(Joint Mot. for Certification of Question of Law (“Joint Mot.”) 3:27–28, ECF No. 130).
The parties also filed a Stipulation and Order for Temporary Stay of Briefing Deadlines

15

(“Stipulation”). (See ECF No. 132). In the Stipulation, the parties ask the Court for a

16

temporary stay on briefing deadlines until determination of their Joint Motion. (Id. 1:27–2:2).

17

If the Court denies the Stipulation, the parties request that “the Court extend the time in which

18

Plaintiffs may respond to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Id. 2:3–5).

19

The Court did not issue ruling on the Stipulation, and the parties have not filed any subsequent

20

briefing.

21
22
23
24

hour if the employer does not provide such benefits. Offering health benefits within the
meaning of this section shall consist of making health insurance available to the employee for
the employee and the employee’s dependents at a total cost to the employee for premiums of not
more than 10 percent of the employee’s gross taxable income from the employer. These rates of
wages shall be adjusted by the amount of increases in the federal minimum wage over $5.15 per
hour, or, if greater, by the cumulative increase in the cost of living.

25

Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16.

Page 2 of 5

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

A.

3

Pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, the Nevada Supreme Court may

4

answer questions of law certified to it by a United States District Court upon the certifying

5

court’s request:

6
7
8

Joint Motion to Certify Question

if there are involved in any proceeding before those courts
questions of law of this state which may be determinative of the
cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears
to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the
decisions of the supreme court of this state.

9
10

Nev. R. App. P. 5(a); see also Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc. v. Ricci, 137 P.3d 1161, 1163–64

11

(Nev. 2006). A certifying court may invoke Rule 5 upon its own motion or upon the motion of

12

any party. Nev. R. App. P. 5(b).

13

Whether to certify a question to the state’s highest court lies within the federal court’s

14

discretion. Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974). Factors a federal court should

15

consider in exercising this discretion include whether the state law question presents a

16

significant question of important state public policy, whether the issue involved has broad

17

application, whether law from other states is instructive, the state court’s case load, and comity

18

and federalism concerns. Kremen v. Cohen, 325 F.3d 1035, 1037–38 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

19

Boucher v. Shaw, 483 F.3d 613, 616 (9th Cir. 2007).

20

The Court, in its discretion, finds no compelling reason to certify here. The Nevada

21

Supreme Court recently issued controlling authority on the parties’ question pursuant to its

22

decision in Western Cab Company v. Eighth Judicial District Ct. of State in and for County of

23

Clark, 390 P.3d 662 (Nev. 2017) (“The MWA defines ‘health benefits’ as ‘making health

24

insurance available to the employee for the employee and the employee’s dependents at a total

25

cost to the employee for premiums of not more than 10 percent of the employee’s gross taxable

Page 3 of 5

1

income from the employer.’”). As such, sending the same issue to the Nevada Supreme Court

2

for resolution would waste both the parties’ and the judicial systems’ time, energy, and

3

resources. Accordingly, the Court denies the Joint Motion for Certification of Question of Law

4

to the Nevada Supreme Court.

5

B.

6

The Court did not enter judgment as to the parties’ Stipulation and, rather than file

Stipulation to Stay or, in the Alternative, Extend Time

7

responses pursuant to the set deadlines, the parties instead chose not to file their responses as if

8

the Stipulation was granted. Because the Court declined to issue judgment on the Stipulation, it

9

effectively denied the parties’ Stipulation. See L.R. 7-1(b) (“No stipulations relating to

10

proceedings before the court . . . are effective until approved by the court.”). In the future, the

11

parties must follow the set filing deadlines when no order on a stipulation issues prior to date of

12

the deadlines. (See id.).

13

However, because the Court has denied the Joint Motion for Certification, the parties

14

have essentially received the relief sought. As such, pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), Plaintiffs

15

shall have twenty-one days from the issuance of this Order to file their response to the

16

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant shall have fourteen days to respond to

17

the Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The parties’ failure to follow these deadlines will

18

result in the Court considering the pending Motions as unopposed.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4

III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Certification of Question of Law

to the Nevada Supreme Court, (ECF No. 130), is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulation and Order for Temporary Stay of

5

Briefing Deadlines, (ECF No. 132), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs

6

shall have twenty-one days from the issuance of this Order to file their response to Defendant’s

7

Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, and Defendant shall have fourteen days from the

8

issuance of this Order to file its response to Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion to Certify Class.

9

1
DATED this _____ day of May, 2017.

10
11
12

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 5 of 5