Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Sullivan v. Riviera Holdings Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 29, 2015

RAYMOND SULLIVAN AND JULIA CAUSEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
RIVIERA HOLDINGS CORPORATION d/b/a/ RIVIERA HOTEL AND CASINO and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

ORDER (DKT. ##44, 45)

ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs filed motions to clarify (Dkt. #44) and to reconsider (Dkt. #45) my order granting defendant Riviera's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' First Claim for Relief for "all hours worked" pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). I deny plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and grant Plaintiffs motion for clarification to the extent discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural background of this case has been recited on multiple occasions, and there is no need to reiterate the facts except as necessary to rule on the pending motions.

On September 8, 2014, 1 granted Riviera's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint as to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth causes of action, leaving intact the Second and Seventh causes of action-overtime claims pursuant to the FLSA. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration and clarification.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding based on (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik, 243 F.3d 549, 549 (9th Cir.2000).

A motion for reconsideration must set forth some valid reason why the court should revisit its prior order, and facts or law of a "strongly convincing nature" in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Motions for reconsideration "should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000). It is not appropriate for a party to raise a new argument on a motion for reconsideration. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999). Motions for reconsideration are not "intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the judge." Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F.Supp. 879, 889 (E.D.Va.1977).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Clarification (Dkt. #44)

Plaintiffs seek clarification with "regard to the validity of Plaintiff[']s and/or putative class members FLSA claims for overtime when they have in fact worked over forty hours in a workweek." (Dkt. #54 at 4:1-3.) To the extent that plaintiffs need clarification with respect to their overtime claims, I direct them to docket entry 43, wherein their Second and Seventh causes of action are still pending.

B. Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #45)

Although their motion is not a model of clarity, plaintiffs seem to assert that based on Nevada's minimum wage statutes, I should not have dismissed their minimum wage claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206.[1]Plaintiffs provide no support for their assertions that the interpretation of the FLSA's "workweek" analysis is somehow governed by state law. Without more, I find that the interpretation of state law minimum wage statutes is irrelevant to plaintiffs' FLSA minimum wage claims. Further, I previously dismissed plaintiffs' state law minimum wage claims.[2] {See Dkt. #43.)

Moreover, plaintiffs never argued the applicability of state law in their opposition to the motion to dismiss. {See Dkt. #36.) They cannot now use a motion for reconsideration "to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they would reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation." See Kona, 229 F.3d at 890. Thus, I deny plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for clarification (Dkt. #44) is GRANTED to the extent described above. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #45) is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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