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

May 28, 2019

SEAN KENNEDY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is defendants Las Vegas Sands Corp. (“Sands Corp.”) and Sands Aviation, LLC's (“Sands Aviation”) (collectively “defendants”) first motion in limine. (ECF No. 124). Plaintiffs Sean Kennedy, Andrew Snider, Christopher Ward, Randall Weston, and Ronald Williamson (collectively “plaintiffs”) filed a response (ECF No. 137), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 138).

         Also before the court is defendants' second motion in limine. (ECF No. 125). Plaintiffs filed a response (ECF No. 136), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 139).

         Also before the court is plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 127). Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 132), to which plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 135).

         Also before the court is defendants' first motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 144). Plaintiffs filed a response (ECF No. 156), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 175).

         Also before the court is defendants' second motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 145). Plaintiffs filed a response (ECF No. 154), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 176).

         Also before the court is defendants' third motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 146). Plaintiffs filed a response (ECF No. 159), to which defendants replied (ECF No. 177).

         I. Facts

         Sands Corp. owns and operates several properties in Las Vegas including Sands Expo and Convention Center, the Venetian, and the Palazzo. (ECF Nos. 55, 144-8). Sands Aviation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sands Corp., provides private aviation services for Sands Corp.'s personnel and guests. (ECF No. 144-8). Every flight that Sands Aviation provides includes two pilots: a pilot-in-command (“PIC”) and a second-in-command (“SIC”). (ECF Nos. 144, 156). Sands Aviation formerly employed plaintiffs as PICs. Id.

         Although Sands Aviation directly hired pilots, Sands Corp. was extensively involved in Sands Aviation's employment practices. When Sands Aviation would hire new employees, it would first contact Sands Corp. to facilitate background checks, drug tests, and process administrative paperwork. (ECF Nos. 155-1, 155-5). Once employed, Sands Aviation required employees to abide by Sands Corp.'s policies. (ECF Nos. 155-4, 155-5). If an employee violated a policy, Sands Aviation would consult with Sands Corp. to determine an appropriate way to discipline and document the violation. (ECF No. 155-5).

         Pilots had several other conditions of employment that Sands Corp. controlled, such as the manner in which pilots generated time share reports and maintained flight logs. (ECF Nos. 155-17, 155-18). Sands Corp. also directly paid Sands Aviation's pilots and set their rate of pay. (ECF Nos. 155-16, 155-25, 155-26). Lastly, in cases of employment termination, Sands Aviation would typically seek Sands Corp. for advice and consultation. (ECF No. 155-5).

         Defendants hired plaintiffs as PICs in furtherance of their private aviation services. (ECF No. 144-8). However, the nature and scope of a PICs duties is unclear. Defendants have provided deposition testimony showing that PICs bear greater responsibility than a SIC with regards to flights safety decisions, operational control of the aircraft, and authority over flight crew. (ECF Nos. 144-3, 144-4, 144-5, 144-6, 144-7, 144-10). Plaintiffs contested defendants' position by providing deposition testimony and documentary evidence showing htat PICs and SICs share most responsibilities. (ECF No. 144-8, 157-6, 157-7).

         The parties are substantially in agreement regarding the following facts pertaining to plaintiffs' employment.

• Kennedy worked as a PIC from October 10, 2011, to April 20, 2017, and received an annual salary ranging from $125, 000.00 to $142, 151.10. (ECF No. 144-3).
• Snider worked as a PIC from March 20, 2014, to September 2, 2016, and received an annual salary ranging from $125, 000.00 to $130, 049.92. (ECF No. 144-4).
• Ward worked as a PIC from April 20, 2013, to July 4, 2017, and received an annual salary of $125, 000.00 to $145, 000.00. (ECF No. 144-5).
• Weston worked as a PIC from February 10, 2014, to July 2017 and received an annual salary of $150, 000.00 to $159, 181.10. (ECF No. 144-6).
• Williamson worked as a PIC from June 2011 to April 2017 and received an annual salary of $125, 000.00 to $142, 151.10. (ECF No. 144-7).

         Plaintiffs' annual salaries did not include overtime compensation. See (ECF Nos. 144, 156).

         On March 27, 2017, plaintiffs initiated this action. (ECF No. 1). On August 2, 2017, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint seeking three years of unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees for defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207 et seq., which requires employers to pay time and a half for hours that employees work beyond 40 hours per week. (ECF No. 55). Approximately one year later, defendants filed their answers to the amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 111, 112).

         Now, the parties have filed several motions requesting multiple forms of relief, including exclusion of evidence, reconsideration of a court order, and summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 124, 125, 127, 144, 145, 146).

         II. Legal Standard

         a. ...


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.