Sargant vs HG Staffing, LLC

Filing 248

ORDER that ECF No. 245 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED; the court reinstates the plaintiff's fourth, sixth and seventh claims; ECF Nos. 218 , 220 , 222 , 223 , 224 , and 225 defendants' Motions for Sum mary Judgment are DENIED without prejudice; defendants must file complete motions for summary judgment that include briefing on the reinstated claims by 2/9/2018. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

12

***
TIFFANY SARGENT, BAILEY
Case No. 3:13-cv-00453-LRH-WGC
CRYDERMAN, SAMANTHA L. IGNACIO
(formerly SCHNEIDER), VINCENT M.
ORDER
IGNACIO, HUONG (“ROSIE”) BOGGS, and
JACQULYN WIEDERHOLT on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,

13

Plaintiffs,

9
10
11

14
15
16
17

v.
HG STAFFING, LLC; MEI-GSR
HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND SIERRA
RESORT; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.

18
19

The plaintiffs in this matter move the court to reconsider two of its previous orders. ECF

20

No. 245. The first order resulted in, and the second order confirmed, the dismissal of the

21

plaintiffs’ claims brought under Chapter 608 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“N.R.S”). ECF

22

Nos. 172, 204. The defendants opposed the motion for reconsideration, and the plaintiffs filed a

23

reply. ECF Nos. 246, 247. Based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling in Neville v. Eighth

24

Judicial District Court in & for County of Clark, 406 P.3d 499 (Nev. 2017) (holding N.R.S.

25

§ 608.140 recognizes a private right of action for unpaid wages), the court now reverses its two

26

previous orders and reinstates plaintiffs’ fourth, sixth, and seventh claims. But the plaintiffs’

27

eighth claim remains dismissed. Also, because the court reinstates three claims for each plaintiff,

28

the court denies the defendants’ six pending summary judgment motions without prejudice.
1

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

The plaintiffs sue the defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Nevada

3

Constitution, and provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes. ECF No. 47. Four of the plaintiffs’

4

claims are relevant to this order: (1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of

5

N.R.S. § 608.140 and § 608.016 (fourth claim); (2) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of

6

N.R.S. § 608.140 and § 608.018 (sixth claim); (3) failure to pay all wages due and owing upon

7

termination in violation of N.R.S. § 608.140 and § 608.020 to § 608.050 (seventh claim); and

8

(4) unlawful chargebacks in violation of N.R.S. § 608.100 (eighth claim). See id.; ECF Nos. 245,

9

246, 247.

10

The court dismissed the four relevant claims in its January 11, 2016 Order (“ECF No.

11

172”), holding that Chapter 608 does not provide for a private right of action. ECF No. 172. The

12

court based its decision solely on statutory grounds. Id. In making its decision, the court agreed

13

with the majority of case law from the District of Nevada. Id. (citing multiple District of Nevada

14

cases holding no private right of action exists under Chapter 608). The court later reaffirmed its

15

decision, denying the plaintiffs’ earlier motion to reconsider. ECF No. 204.

16

Since the court’s previous orders were issued, the Nevada Supreme Court considered if

17

Chapter 608 allows for a private right of action. See Neville, 406 P.3d 499. It concluded that

18

N.R.S. § 608.140 demonstrates the legislature’s intent to create a private right of action for

19

unpaid wages. Id. at 504. It then reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims that were tied to

20

N.R.S. § 608.140 and were brought under Chapter 608—specifically N.R.S. § 608.016,

21

§ 608.018, and § 608.020 to 608.050. Id. Based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in

22

Neville, the plaintiffs move the court to reconsider ECF No. 172 and ECF No. 204. ECF No. 245.

23

Additionally, since the court’s previous orders were issued, the defendants filed six

24

motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 218, 220, 222–225. The plaintiffs opposed the

25

motions for summary judgment, and the defendants filed replies. ECF Nos. 228–233, 236–241.

26

Each motion argues for the dismissal of a single plaintiff’s remaining claims, but the motions do

27

not discuss the plaintiffs’ previously dismissed claims. See ECF Nos. 218, 220, 222–225. The

28

summary judgment motions remain pending at the time of this order.
2

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A party may move for relief from a final judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil

2
3

Procedure 60(b). A motion under Rule 60(b) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in

4

the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

5

Bishop, 229 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit allows for reconsideration “if the

6

district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

7

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

8

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed.

9

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).

10
11

III.

DISCUSSION
The plaintiffs move the court to reconsider the dismissal of their claims brought under

12

Chapter 608 based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Neville v. Eighth Judicial District

13

Court in & for County of Clark, 406 P.3d 499 (Nev. 2017). ECF No. 245. The defendants argue

14

that the Neville decision does not require reconsideration of the court’s earlier orders, but even if

15

it did, Neville would not change the outcome of the court’s earlier orders. ECF No. 246. The

16

court disagrees; the Neville decision alters the court’s decision on the issue on which summary

17

judgment was granted.

18

At the time of its order, the court found that Chapter 608 did not provide for a private

19

right of action, agreeing with case law from the District of Nevada. But the court limited its

20

decision to determining if Chapter 608 allowed for a private suit to recover earned wages; the

21

court declined to reach any factual issues. Since issuing its order on the statutory question, the

22

Nevada Supreme Court ruled contrarily in Neville, finding that N.R.S. § 608.140 “explicitly

23

recognizes a private cause of action for recovery of unpaid wages.” 406 P.3d at 500. Thus, the

24

Nevada Supreme Court “conclude[d] that NRS Chapter 608 provides a private right of action for

25

unpaid wages.” Id. The Nevada Supreme Court therefore instructed the district court to vacate its

26

order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims brought under Chapter 608 and tied to N.R.S. § 608.140.

27

Id. at 504. These claims included causes of action brought under N.R.S. § 608.016, § 608.018,

28

and § 608.020 to § 608.050. Id. at 504.
3

1

The plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the order dismissing claims brought under the same

2

provisions of Chapter 608 as the plaintiff’s claims in Neville. ECF No. 247. The plaintiffs’ fourth

3

claim falls under N.R.S. § 608.016; the plaintiffs’ sixth claim falls under N.R.S. § 608.018; the

4

plaintiffs’ seventh claim falls under N.R.S. § 608.020 to § 608.050. Further, the plaintiffs tied

5

their fourth, sixth, and seventh claims to N.R.S. § 608.140. Because the claims are brought under

6

Chapter 608 and tied to N.R.S. § 608.140, the Neville holding requires the court to find that a

7

private right of action exists for the claims. The court therefore vacates its earlier orders in part

8

and reinstates the plaintiffs’ fourth, sixth, and seventh claims.
Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ eighth claim in ECF No. 172. The

9
10

plaintiffs brought their eighth claim under N.R.S. § 608.100. Unlike the rest of the claims at

11

issue, the plaintiffs did not tie the claim to N.R.S. § 608.140. But the plaintiffs contend that their

12

complaint properly states a claim for unpaid wages under N.R.S. § 608.100 nevertheless. ECF

13

No. 247 at fn. 2. The court disagrees. The Nevada Supreme Court held that no private right of

14

action exists to enforce N.R.S. § 608.100. Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96, 100

15

(Nev. 2008) (stating the discussion holding no private right of action exists under N.R.S.

16

§ 608.160 applies equally to N.R.S. § 608.100). Accordingly, the court neither vacates its

17

previous orders in regards to the plaintiffs’ eighth claim nor reinstates the plaintiffs’ eighth

18

claim.
Based on the foregoing, the court denies the pending motions for summary judgment

19
20

without prejudice to allow the parties to file motions for summary judgment that address all

21

remaining claims—including those claims reinstated herein.

22

IV.

23

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the court’s previous

24

orders (ECF No. 245) is GRANTED. The court reinstates the plaintiffs’ fourth, sixth, and

25

seventh claims. But the court does not reinstate the plaintiffs’ eighth claim.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants HG Staffing, LLC and MEI-GSR Holdings,

27

LLC dba Grand Sierra Resort’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted

28

by plaintiff Jacqulyn Wiederholt (ECF No. 218) is DENIED without prejudice.
4

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants HG Staffing, LLC and MEI-GSR Holdings,

2

LLC dba Grand Sierra Resort’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted

3

by plaintiff Huong (“Rosie”) Boggs (ECF No. 220) is DENIED without prejudice.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants HG Staffing, LLC and MEI-GSR Holdings,

5

LLC dba Grand Sierra Resort’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted

6

by plaintiff Tiffany Sargent (ECF No. 222) is DENIED without prejudice.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants HG Staffing, LLC and MEI-GSR Holdings,

8

LLC dba Grand Sierra Resort’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted

9

by plaintiff Samantha Ignacio (ECF No. 223) is DENIED without prejudice.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants HG Staffing, LLC and MEI-GSR Holdings,

11

LLC dba Grand Sierra Resort’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted

12

by plaintiff Vincent Ignacio (ECF No. 224) is DENIED without prejudice.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants HG Staffing, LLC and MEI-GSR Holdings,

14

LLC dba Grand Sierra Resort’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims asserted

15

by plaintiff Bailey Cryderman (ECF No. 225) is DENIED without prejudice.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants shall file complete motions for

17

summary judgment that include briefing on the reinstated claims, if any, within 30 days of the

18

entry of this order.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED this 10th day of January, 2018.

22

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
5