United States District Court, D. Nevada
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,
WENDY'S OF LAS VEGAS, INC., an Ohio corporation; CEDAR ENTERPRISES, INC., an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge
before the Court is the Joint Motion for Certification of
Question of Law to the Nevada Supreme Court, (ECF No. 78),
filed by Plaintiffs Raissa Burton, Linda Davis, Florence
Edjeou, David Hunsicker, Lee Jones, Kwayisi, Jeremy McKinney,
Terron Sharp, and Latonya Tyus (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Wendy's of Las
Vegas, Inc., and Cedar Enterprises, Inc. (collectively
“Defendants”). For the reasons discussed below,
the Court DENIES the Joint Motion.
case arises from a class action brought by Plaintiffs
regarding Nevada's Minimum Wage Amendment
(“MWA”) to the Nevada Constitution. In 2006,
Nevada voters approved the MWA, which “guaranteed to
each Nevada employee . . . a particular hourly wage.”
(Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs were
employees of Defendants, who are owners and operators of
Wendy's Restaurants in southern Nevada. (Id.
¶ 1). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants paid employees
“below the upper-tier hourly minimum wage level”
in violation of the MWA. (Id. ¶ 2).
filed the instant action in this Court on May 9, 2014.
(See Compl., ECF No. 1). On March 12, 2015,
Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF
No. 43), and on April 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 48). In the Court's
Order on these Motions, a question of law interpreting the
MWA was certified to the Nevada Supreme Court. (See
Order 11:1-5, ECF No. 71). On October 27, 2016, the Nevada
Supreme Court answered the certified question. See MDC
Rests., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State in &
for County of Clark, 383 P.3d 262, 265 (Nev. 2016).
light of this ruling, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion to
Certify Class, (ECF No. 76), on December 15, 2016, and
Defendants filed a Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF
No. 77), the next day. However, on the same day that
Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment, the
parties filed a Joint Motion for Certification of a Question
of Law, (ECF No. 78), asking the Court to certify an
What constitutes “health benefits” offered by an
employer for purposes of paying below the upper-tier minimum
hourly wage rate under Nev. Const. art XV, sec 16(A)?
Mot. for Certification of Question of Law (“Joint
Mot.”) 3:25-27, ECF No. 78).
parties also filed a Stipulation and Order for Temporary Stay
of Briefing Deadlines (ECF No. 80). In the Stipulation, the
parties ask the Court for a temporary stay on briefing
deadlines until determination of their Joint Motion. (Stip.
1:27-2:3). However, the parties aver that if the Court were
to deny the stay, the parties request that “the Court
extend the time in which Plaintiffs may respond to
Defendants' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment.”
(Id. 2:4-5). The Court did not issue ruling on the
Stipulation, and the parties have not filed any subsequent
Motion to Certify Question
to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, the Nevada Supreme
Court may answer questions of law certified to it by a United
States District Court upon the certifying court's
if there are involved in any proceeding before those courts
questions of law of this state which may be determinative of
the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to
which it appears to the certifying court there is no
controlling precedent in the decisions of the supreme court
of this state.
App. P. 5(a); see also Volvo Cars of N. Am., Inc. v.
Ricci, 137 P.3d 1161, 1163-64 (Nev. 2006). A certifying
court may invoke Rule 5 upon its own motion or ...