United States District Court, D. Nevada
M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge
before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No.
18), filed by Defendant Robert Roth, MD
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff Lisa Hoops
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 21), and
Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 23). For the reasons
set forth herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
case arises out of an overtime compensation dispute between
Plaintiff and her former employer. (Compl., ECF No. 1).
Defendant is a corporation that transacts business under the
trade name of Box Canyon Primary Care (“Box
Canyon”). (Id. ¶ 9). Box Canyon is a
medical practice offering patient care in the area of general
medicine. (Pl.'s Resp. 3:5-7, ECF No. 21). Plaintiff
worked at Box Canyon from 2007 to 2015 and was paid an hourly
rate of $18.00. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 9).
this time, Defendant started a 24/7 hotline, wherein certain
MGM Direct Care Plan and Humana Gold patients could call at
any time to speak to a representative of Box Canyon (the
“24/7 Hotline”). (See Cagnina Decl.
¶ 2, Ex. 1 to Def.'s MSJ, ECF No. 18-1). As the
“Patient Coordinator, ” Plaintiff was responsible
for answering telephone calls that came in on the 24/7
Hotline after ordinary business hours. (Pl.'s Resp.
3:14-19). While Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant
paid her for overtime hours worked in the office, she alleges
that Defendant failed to compensate her for any hours worked
outside of the office involving the 24/7 Hotline. (Compl.
¶ 20). In contrast, Defendant argues that it compensated
Plaintiff through agreed upon “surplus” payments
stemming from the 24/7 Hotline Program. (See Cagnina
Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1 to Def.'s MSJ).
28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging two causes of
action: (1) violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207; and (2) violation
of N.R.S. 608.040. (Compl. ¶¶ 6-22). Defendant
filed an Answer on August 24, 2015, denying that it owes
Plaintiff any overtime compensation. (Answer, ECF No. 7). On
May 5, 2016, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment on both of Plaintiff's claims. (ECF No. 18).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for summary
adjudication when the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the
case. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine
if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Id .
“Summary judgment is inappropriate if reasonable
jurors, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party, could return a verdict in the nonmoving party's
favor.” Diaz v. Eagle Produce Ltd. P'ship,
521 F.3d 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States
v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 1999)). A
principal purpose of summary judgment is “to isolate
and dispose of factually unsupported claims.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24
determining summary judgment, a court applies a
burden-shifting analysis. “When the party moving for
summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it
must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a
directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at
trial. In such a case, the moving party has the initial
burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact
on each issue material to its case.” C.A.R. Transp.
Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480
(9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). In contrast, when the
nonmoving party bears the burden of proving the claim or
defense, the moving party can meet its burden in two ways:
(1) by presenting evidence to negate an essential element of
the nonmoving party's case; or (2) by demonstrating that
the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to
establish an element essential to that party's case on
which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323- 24. If the
moving party fails to meet its initial burden, summary
judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the
nonmoving party's evidence. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress
& Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970).
moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine
issue of material fact exists. See Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986). To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the
opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact
conclusively in its favor. It is sufficient that “the
claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge
to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth
at trial.” T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec.
Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir.
1987). In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid
summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations
that are unsupported by factual data. See Taylor v.
List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Instead, the
opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of
the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing
competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial.
See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324.
summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson,
477 U.S. at 249. The evidence of the nonmovant is “to
be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn
in his favor.” Id. at 255. But if the evidence
of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not
significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.
See Id . at 249-50.
The FLSA Claim
FLSA was created to provide a uniform national policy of
guaranteeing compensation for all work or employment covered
by the act. Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys.,
Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 741 (1981). The FLSA grants
individual employees broad access to the courts and permits
an action to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, or injunctive relief. Id. at
740. Under the FLSA, an employer must pay overtime
compensation to its employees unless one or more of the
“exemptions” apply. See 29 U.S.C. §
213. Overtime compensation ...