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.

Walden v. State ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 18, 2018

DONALD WALDEN JR., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. NEVADA DEPARTMETN OF CORRECTIONS, and DOES 1-50, Defendants.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         Pending before the Court are five dispositive motions: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ ”) (ECF No. 130); (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (“Motion to Certify”) (ECF No. 133); (3) Defendant's Motion to Decertify Collective Action (“Motion to Decertify”) (ECF No. 134); (4) Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's March 26, 2018 Order with Respect to the NRS § 284.180 Overtime Claim Pursuant to FRCP 59(e) and 60(b) (“Motion to Reconsider”) (ECF No. 169); and (5) Defendant's Emergency Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Voluntary Dismissal (“Motion to Strike”) (ECF Nos. 136, 137 (sealed)[1]). The parties filed various responses and replies relating to these motions. (ECF Nos. 143, 144-46 (sealed), 150, 155, 156, 157 (sealed), 163, 170 (sealed), 171, 173, 174, 179, 184.)

         For the reasons discussed herein, the Motion to Reconsider is denied, the unsealed version of the Motion to Strike is granted, the sealed version of the Motion to Strike will be stricken, and the MPSJ, Motion to Certify and Motion to Decertify are denied without prejudice.

         Defendant has also filed five motions to seal (ECF Nos. 135, 138, 142, 159, 172), which the Court denies without prejudice.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs are employees or former employees of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) who contend that NDOC failed to compensate them for time worked as well as for overtime pay. The underlying procedural history and facts of this case can be found in the Court's prior order. (ECF No. 166 at 2-5.)

         III. MOTION TO RECONSIDER

         On March 26, 2018, this Court issued an order (ECF No. 166) resolving in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint (“Prior MTD”). Relevant here is the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' claim under NRS § 284.180, in which this Court held that the claim was not ripe for judicial review because state administrative procedures had not been exhausted pursuant to state law. (ECF No. 166 at 16.) Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). (See ECF No. 169 at 1-3.)

         A. Legal Standard

         A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this 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.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marylyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).

         B. Discussion

         Plaintiffs argue that this Court should reconsider its prior decision because the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies under NRS § 284.180 is futile and the administrative process provided for by that statute is inadequate. In support of this argument, Plaintiffs attach a declaration of opt-in Plaintiff James Kelly in which he describes his attempt to exhaust the administrative process available under state law. (ECF No. 169-1.) Defendant counters that this evidence was available to Plaintiffs in 2013, yet Plaintiffs failed to raise this argument or introduce the evidence in the Plaintiffs' opposition to the Prior MTD. (See ECF No. 179 at 8-9.) Plaintiffs dispute that Kelly's grievances are not new evidence by pointing out that they have opposed Defendant's separate motion to strike those grievances and by stating that Kelly is representative of the class despite being an opt-in plaintiff (Kelly became a party plaintiff on August 8. 2014). (ECF No. 184 at 3 n.2.) Neither response directly addresses Plaintiffs' failure to present this evidence in their opposition to the Prior MTD or their failure to argue that the administrative process under NRS § 284.180 is futile or inadequate as a matter of law. These issues could have reasonably been raised in Plaintiffs' opposition to the Prior MTD. The Court therefore denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider. See Marylyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880.

         IV. ...


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.