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

July 21, 2017

ARTHUR F. COYNE., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
STATION CASINOS LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, RED ROCK RESORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

          THIERMAN BUCK LLP Leah L. Jones Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8285 Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12187 Leah L. Jones, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13161 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, Nevada 89511 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          SEMENZA KIRCHER RICKARD Lawrence J. Semenza, III Lawrence J. Semenza, III, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7174 Christopher D. Kircher, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 11176 Jarrod L. Rickard, Esq.x

          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP Robert B. Bader Luanne Sacks (pro hac vice application to be submitted) Robert B. Bader (pro hac vice application to be submitted) Attorneys for Defendants

          STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FLSA CLAIMS AND TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN NEVILLE, JR. V. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DIST. CT. CASE 2:17-CV-01603-JAD-PAL DOCUMENT 13 FILED 07/21/17 PAGE 1 OF 5 ECF NOS. 10, 13

         ARTHUR F. COYNE (“Plaintiff) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by and through his counsel of record, and Defendants STATION CASINOS LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company and RED ROCK RESORTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their counsel of record (Plaintiff and Defendants collectively referred to as the “Parties”), submit the below stipulation to stay all proceedings in the above captioned matter pending the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Neville, Jr. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (Terrible Herbst, Inc.) Supreme Court Case No. 70696 (oral argument held on Monday, July 17, 2017) (“Neville”).

         The purpose of the requested stay is to promote judicial economy and allow this Court to more effectively control the disposition of this action with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and the litigants. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (U.S. 1936) (“the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”); Pate v. DePay Orthopedics, Inc., 2012 WL 3532780, at * 2 (D. Nev. Aug. 14, 2012) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case”), citing Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979).

         Resolution of the question presented in Neville may impact the Nevada wage and hour law issues in the present case. Accordingly, the Parties agree to and stipulate as follows:

1) Plaintiff sets forth various allegations and claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Nevada Wage and Hour law, and Nevada contract law (“Plaintiffs Claims”);
2) Plaintiff asserts his claims on behalf of himself and a group of allegedly similarly situated employees as a collective action under the FLSA and a Rule 23 class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
3) Defendants dispute and deny Plaintiffs Claims, including whether the proposed lawsuit can be maintained as either a Rule 23 class action or a FLSA collective action, and specifically contend that Plaintiff does not have a private right of action to assert his Nevada wage and hour law claims for the reasons set forth in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10);
4) The Parties agree to stay all proceedings until the Nevada Supreme Court issues a decision in Neville (the “Stay Period”);
5) The Parties further agree that the statute of limitations for all FLSA claims asserted in the Complaint are tolled from the date the Court enters the requested stay in this action until the Nevada Supreme Court a decision in Neville;
6) The Parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in Neville to file a status report with this Court to set an updated briefing schedule for Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10); and
7) The Parties reserve all rights and defenses to which they are entitled as of the first day of the Stay Period and this stipulation does not effect and is not intended to effect ...

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.