United States District Court, D. Nevada
TIFFANY SARGENT, BAILEY CRYDERMAN, SAMANTHA L. IGNACIO formerly SCHNEIDER, VINCENT M. IGNACIO, HUONG “ROSIE” BOGGS, and JACQULYN WIEDERHOLT on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
HG STAFFING, LLC; MEI-GSR HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND SIERRA RESORT; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.
R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiffs in this matter move the court to reconsider two of
its previous orders. ECF No. 245. The first order resulted
in, and the second order confirmed, the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims brought under Chapter 608 of the
Nevada Revised Statutes (“N.R.S”). ECF Nos. 172,
204. The defendants opposed the motion for reconsideration,
and the plaintiffs filed a reply. ECF Nos. 246, 247. Based on
the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in Neville v.
Eighth Judicial District Court in & for County of
Clark, 406 P.3d 499 (Nev. 2017) (holding N.R.S. §
608.140 recognizes a private right of action for unpaid
wages), the court now reverses its two previous orders and
reinstates plaintiffs' fourth, sixth, and seventh claims.
But the plaintiffs' eighth claim remains dismissed. Also,
because the court reinstates three claims for each plaintiff,
the court denies the defendants' six pending summary
judgment motions without prejudice.
plaintiffs sue the defendants under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Nevada Constitution, and provisions of the Nevada
Revised Statutes. ECF No. 47. Four of the plaintiffs'
claims are relevant to this order: (1) failure to pay wages
for all hours worked in violation of N.R.S. § 608.140
and § 608.016 (fourth claim); (2) failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of N.R.S. § 608.140 and §
608.018 (sixth claim); (3) failure to pay all wages due and
owing upon termination in violation of N.R.S. § 608.140
and § 608.020 to § 608.050 (seventh claim); and (4)
unlawful chargebacks in violation of N.R.S. § 608.100
(eighth claim). See id.; ECF Nos. 245, 246, 247.
court dismissed the four relevant claims in its January 11,
2016 Order (“ECF No. 172”), holding that Chapter
608 does not provide for a private right of action. ECF No.
172. The court based its decision solely on statutory
grounds. Id. In making its decision, the court
agreed with the majority of case law from the District of
Nevada. Id. (citing multiple District of Nevada
cases holding no private right of action exists under Chapter
608). The court later reaffirmed its decision, denying the
plaintiffs' earlier motion to reconsider. ECF No. 204.
the court's previous orders were issued, the Nevada
Supreme Court considered if Chapter 608 allows for a private
right of action. See Neville, 406 P.3d 499. It
concluded that N.R.S. § 608.140 demonstrates the
legislature's intent to create a private right of action
for unpaid wages. Id. at 504. It then reversed the
dismissal of the plaintiff's claims that were tied to
N.R.S. § 608.140 and were brought under Chapter
608-specifically N.R.S. § 608.016, § 608.018, and
§ 608.020 to 608.050. Id. Based on the Nevada
Supreme Court's decision in Neville, the
plaintiffs move the court to reconsider ECF No. 172 and ECF
No. 204. ECF No. 245.
since the court's previous orders were issued, the
defendants filed six motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos.
218, 220, 222-225. The plaintiffs opposed the motions for
summary judgment, and the defendants filed replies. ECF Nos.
228-233, 236-241. Each motion argues for the dismissal of a
single plaintiff's remaining claims, but the motions do
not discuss the plaintiffs' previously dismissed claims.
See ECF Nos. 218, 220, 222-225. The summary judgment
motions remain pending at the time of this order.
may move for relief from a final judgment or order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). A motion under Rule
60(b) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly
in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial
resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth
Circuit allows for reconsideration “if the district
court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)
committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(6).
plaintiffs move the court to reconsider the dismissal of
their claims brought under Chapter 608 based on the Nevada
Supreme Court's decision in Neville v. Eighth
Judicial District Court in & for County of Clark,
406 P.3d 499 (Nev. 2017). ECF No. 245. The defendants argue
that the Neville decision does not require
reconsideration of the court's earlier orders, but even
if it did, Neville would not change the outcome of
the court's earlier orders. ECF No. 246. The court
disagrees; the Neville decision alters the
court's decision on the issue on which summary judgment
time of its order, the court found that Chapter 608 did not
provide for a private right of action, agreeing with case law
from the District of Nevada. But the court limited its
decision to determining if Chapter 608 allowed for a private
suit to recover earned wages; the court declined to reach any
factual issues. Since issuing its order on the statutory
question, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled contrarily in
Neville, finding that N.R.S. § 608.140
“explicitly recognizes a private cause of action for
recovery of unpaid wages.” 406 P.3d at 500. Thus, the
Nevada Supreme Court “conclude[d] that NRS Chapter 608
provides a private right of action for unpaid wages.”
Id. The Nevada Supreme Court therefore instructed
the district court to vacate its order dismissing the
plaintiff's claims brought under Chapter 608 and tied to
N.R.S. § 608.140. Id. at 504. These claims
included causes of action brought under N.R.S. §
608.016, § 608.018, and § 608.020 to §
608.050. Id. at 504.
plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the order dismissing
claims brought under the same provisions of Chapter 608 as
the plaintiff's claims in Neville. ECF No. 247.
The plaintiffs' fourth claim falls under N.R.S. §
608.016; the plaintiffs' sixth claim falls under N.R.S.
§ 608.018; the plaintiffs' seventh claim falls under
N.R.S. § 608.020 to § 608.050. Further, the
plaintiffs tied their fourth, sixth, and seventh claims to
N.R.S. § 608.140. Because the claims are brought under
Chapter 608 and tied to N.R.S. § 608.140, the
Neville holding requires the court to find that a
private right of action exists for the claims. The court
therefore vacates its earlier orders in part and reinstates
the plaintiffs' fourth, sixth, and seventh claims.
the court dismissed the plaintiffs' eighth claim in ECF
No. 172. The plaintiffs brought their eighth claim under
N.R.S. § 608.100. Unlike the rest of the claims at
issue, the plaintiffs did not tie the claim to N.R.S. §
608.140. But the plaintiffs contend that their complaint
properly states a claim for unpaid wages under N.R.S. §
608.100 nevertheless. ECF No. 247 at fn. 2. The court
disagrees. The Nevada Supreme Court held that no private
right of action exists to enforce N.R.S. § 608.100.
Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96, 100
(Nev. 2008) (stating the discussion holding no private right
of action exists under N.R.S. § 608.160 applies ...