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.

Yarbrough v. Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Nevada

March 10, 2015

KEVIN J. YARBROUGH, Plaintiff(s),
v.
CANYON GATE AT LAS VEGAS, INC., Defendant(s).

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendant Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc.’s (hereinafter “defendant”) motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 5). Plaintiff Kevin Yarbrough (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed a response, (doc. # 9), and defendant filed a reply, (doc. # 12).

I. Background

Plaintiff works for defendant as an assistant golf professional. In August 2013, he was transferred to work as an assistant retail clerk in defendant’s golf shop. For each eight-hour shift, plaintiff was entitled to two fifteen-minute paid rest breaks and one thirty-minute unpaid lunch period. (Doc. # 1-2).

Plaintiff was not provided his rest breaks. Rather than allowing plaintiff to take a lunch break, plaintiff’s supervisor directed him to clock out for lunch and continue working. Plaintiff complained to defendant’s general and regional managers. (Doc. # 1-2).

Plaintiff’s hours were then reduced repeatedly. Despite his seniority, plaintiff was assigned to work outdoors in extreme heat while less-senior employees were allowed to work elsewhere. On one occasion, plaintiff was disciplined for refusing to clock out while working. (Doc. # 1-2).

Plaintiff’s annual evaluation was markedly lower after his complaints. He was provided with written comments about his “negative attitude” and failure to understand defendant’s business. Plaintiff has lost hours, income, and career advantage. (Doc. # 1-2).

On November 19, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in Nevada state court alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), violations of Nevada Revised Statutes 608.016 and 608.019, and retaliation. (Doc. # 1-2). On December 30, 2014, defendant removed the case to this court. (Doc. # 1).

II. Legal Standard

A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “[a] short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands “more than labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

“Factual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Thus, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted).

In Iqbal, the Supreme Court clarified the two-step approach district courts are to apply when considering motions to dismiss. First, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint; however, legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 678-79. Mere recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id.

Second, the court must consider whether the factual allegations in the complaint allege a plausible claim for relief. Id. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff’s complaint alleges facts that allow the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. at 678.

Where the complaint does not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has “alleged – but it has not shown – that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 679 (internal quotations omitted). When the allegations in a complaint have not crossed the line from conceivable to plausible, plaintiff's claim must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

The Ninth Circuit addressed post-Iqbal pleading standards in Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. ...


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.