Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tyus v. Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 4, 2015

LATONYA TYUS, an individual; DAVID HUNSICKER, an individual; LINDA DAVIS, an individual; TERRON SHARP, an individual; COLLINS KWAYISI, an individual; LEE JONES, an individual; RAISSA BURTON, an individual; JERMEY MCKINNEY, an individual; and FLORENCE EDJEOU, an individual, all on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v.
WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS, INC., an Ohio corporation; CEDAR ENTERPRISES, INC., an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) filed by Defendants Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc. and Cedar Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs Raissa Burton, Linda Davis, Florence Edjeou, David Hunsicker, Lee Jones, Collins Kwayisi, Jeremy McKinney, Terron Sharp, and Latonya Tyus (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Response (ECF No. 14), and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 15). For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of alleged violations of Nevada statutes pertaining to minimum wage regulations for employers. Plaintiffs are employees of the fast food restaurant chain, Wendy's, who work at various locations throughout Clark County, Nevada. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs allege that this action "is a result of [Defendants'] failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees who are members of the Class the lawful minimum wage, because [Defendants] improperly claim, or have claimed, the right to compensate employees below the upper-tier hourly minimum wage level under Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16." ( Id. ¶ 2).

Plaintiffs filed the instant action in this Court on May 9, 2014. ( See Compl., ECF No. 1). Shortly thereafter, on May 20, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, alleging four claims for relief: (1) violation of Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16; (2) violation of Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16 and NAC 608.102; (3) violation of Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16 and NAC 608.104; (4) violation of NRS 608.018. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 88-105). Subsequently, Defendants filed the instant motion, seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 11).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that a court dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See North Star Int'l v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th Cir. 1983). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, the Court will take all material allegations as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986).

The Court, however, is not required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). A formulaic recitation of a cause of action with conclusory allegations is not sufficient; a plaintiff must plead facts showing that a violation is plausible, not just possible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (emphasis added).

In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.

If the court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted unless it is clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. DeSoto v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 957 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to Rule 15(a), the court should "freely" give leave to amend "when justice so requires, " and in the absence of a reason such as "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

III. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' Fourth Claim for Relief should be dismissed because there is no private right of action under NRS 608.018 and for failure to state a claim. (Mot. to Dismiss 6:17-9:2, ECF No. 11). Plaintiffs do not "oppose the portions of Defendants' motion aimed at dismissing Plaintiffs' Fourth Claim for Relief." (Response 7:1-2, ECF No. 14). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' Fourth Claim for Relief with prejudice.

A. Private Right of Action

Defendants assert that, "[t]o the extent that Plaintiffs' Second Claim is seeking relief for an alleged violation' of NAC 608.102, dismissal is appropriate because there is no private right of action or relief provided in NAC 608.102." (Mot. to Dismiss 3:11-13). Additionally, Defendants assert that, "to the extent Plaintiffs' Third Claim for Relief is attempting to allege a violation' of NAC 608.104, dismissal of the claim with prejudice is proper as there is no private right of action or court relief available to an individual under NAC 608.104." ( Id. 5:6-8). On the other hand, Plaintiffs argue that NAC 608.102 and 608.104 effectuate the mandates of Nev. Const. art. XV, § 16 ("the Minimum Wage Amendment"). (Response ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.