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.

Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 5, 2017

SEAN KENNEDY, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v.
LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendant Interface Operations LLC's (“Interface”) motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiffs Sean Kennedy, Andrew Snider, Christopher Ward, Randall Weston, and Ronald Williamson (collectively, as “plaintiffs”) filed a response (ECF No. 41), to which Interface replied (ECF No. 44).

         Also before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Las Vegas Sands Corp., Las Vegas Sands, LLC, and Sands Aviation, LLC (collectively, as “Sands”). (ECF No. 19). Plaintiffs filed a response (ECF No. 39), to which Sands replied (ECF No. 42).

         I. Facts

         This instant action involves claims for unpaid overtime and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”). Defendant Sands Aviation, LLC provides aviation services to executives and patrons of defendants Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Las Vegas Sands, LLC. (ECF No. 1 at 3). Defendant Interface provides employment support and payroll for Sands. (ECF No. 1 at 3).

         Plaintiffs allege that Sands employed them as company pilots and that between March 27, 2014 and March 27, 2017, plaintiffs worked more than eight hours per day and forty hours per workweek without receipt of overtime compensation. (ECF No. 1 at 5).

         On March 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed the underlying complaint, alleging two causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(a); and (2) retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3). (ECF No. 1).

         In the instant motions, defendants Interface and Sands move for dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF Nos. 18, 19).

         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 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. 2011). The ...


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.