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.

Coyne v. Station Casinos LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 2, 2017

ARTHUR F. COYNE, Plaintiff,
v.
STATION CASINOS LLC, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the court is defendants Red Rock Resorts, Inc.'s (“Red Rock”) and Station Casinos LLC's (“Station Casinos” and collectively, with Red Rock, as “defendants”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff Arthur F. Coyne filed a response (ECF No. 17), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 19).

         I. Facts

         This is a collective and class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the “FLSA”). Plaintiff was employed by defendants as a full-time table games dealer from April 3, 2006, to June 25, 2015. (ECF No. 10). Plaintiff alleges that employees were required to attend three to four pre-shift meetings per week and were not paid for their attendance. (ECF No. 10 at 6).

         Plaintiff alleges that the FLSA class consists of all hourly paid dealers employed by defendants within three years immediately preceding the filing of this action until the date of final judgment. (ECF No. 10 at 8). Plaintiff further alleges that the Nevada class consists of all hourly paid employees employed by defendants in Nevada within six years immediately preceding the filing of this action until the date of final judgment and divided into the following sub-class: wages due and owning-consisting of all former employees. (ECF No. 10 at 9).

         Plaintiff filed the original complaint in state court on November 10, 2016. (ECF No. 1 at 9). Defendants removed the action to federal court on December 21, 2016, based on federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1).

         On January 12, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended collective and class action complaint, alleging seven claims for relief: (1) failure to pay wages for all hours worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207; (3) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Nevada Constitution; (4) failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.016; (5) failure to pay overtime in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.018; (6) failure to timely pay all wages due and owing in violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.020-050; and (7) breach of contract. (ECF No. 10).

         In the instant motion, defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 15).

         II. Legal Standard

         A court may dismiss a 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. at 678.

         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 not shown-that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When the allegations in a complaint have not crossed the line from ...


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.