United States District Court, D. Nevada
ROBERT GREENE, THOMAS SCHEMKES, and GREGORY GREEN on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada Corporation doing business as executive Las Vegas; JAMES JIMMERSON, an individual, CAROL JIMMERSON, an individual, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Motion for Class Certification, (EFC
No. 230), filed by Plaintiffs Robert Greene (“Robert
Greene”), Thomas Schemkes, and Gregory Green
(“Gregory Green”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”). Defendants Jacob Transportation
Services, LLC (“Jacob Transportation Services”),
James Jimmerson, and Carol Jimmerson (the
“Defendants”) filed two separate Responses, (ECF
No. 231, ECF No. 237), and Plaintiffs filed a Reply, (EFC No.
234). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification is
case arises out of limousine drivers claiming that Defendants
failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime payments. On
March 10, 2009, Gregory Green initiated this case alleging
state law minimum wage claims and federal claims under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). (See
generally Compl., ECF No. 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs
assert that “Defendants extracted additional work from
its employees without having to pay them for the work being
performed, ” and that Defendants required employees to
“perform work activities before, after, and in-between
picking up and dropping off clients ‘off-the-clock'
for which they were not compensated.” (See,
e.g., Mot. to Certify 7:3-7, ECF No. 230).
a series of motions, the Court previously dismissed Gregory
Green's state law claims, which he appealed.
(See Order, ECF No. 16); (see also Notice
of Appeal, ECF No. 163). On January 27, 2015, the Ninth
Circuit issued the Memorandum reversing and remanding the
case back to this Court. (See Mem. Op., ECF No.
September 28, 2015, the Court ordered the consolidation of
Plaintiffs' cases and on November, 18, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed their consolidated Complaint. (Order, ECF No. 200);
(Am. Compl., ECF No. 204). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint,
(ECF No. 204), alleges FLSA violations, and various state law
violations pursuant to Nevada Constitution, art. XV, §
16, and NRS §§ 608.100(1)(b), 608.016, 608.100(2),
and 608.020. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32-99). On
September 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for
Class Certification. (ECF No. 230).
actions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
(“Rule 23”). In attempting to certify a class,
the party seeking class certification bears the burden of
demonstrating that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) are
met. Conn. Retirement Plans & Trust Funds v. Amgen.
Inc., 660 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2011). “Rule
23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct.
2541, 2551 (2011). Rather, “[a] party seeking
certification must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance
with the rule, ” and a trial court should only certify
a class if it “is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis
that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been
satisfied.” Id. (citing Gen. Tel. Co. of
Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982)).
order to successfully move to certify a class under Rule 23,
Plaintiffs must satisfy two sets of criteria. First,
Plaintiffs must show each of the following:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4); see Rodriguez v.
Hayes, 591 F.3d 1105, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010). These
requirements are commonly referred to as: (1) numerosity, (2)
commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy. See,
e.g., Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d
1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998). Second, plaintiffs must show at
least one of the following:
(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual
class members would create a risk of:
(A) inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual class members that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
(B) adjudications with respect to individual class members
that, as a practical matter, would be dispositive of the
interests of the other members not parties to the individual
adjudications or would substantially impair or impede their
ability to protect their interests;
(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act
on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is