McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Reese v. NPSG Glob.

    Case No. 2:19-CV-209 JCM (NJK) (D. Nev. Jul. 29, 2020)

    Other courts in this district have granted conditional certification without discussing appointment of interim class counsel. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Diamond Resorts Int'l Mktg., Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00979-APG-CWH, 2019 WL 3430770 (D. Nev. July 29, 2019); Orquiza v. Walldesign, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-1374 JCM CWH, 2012 WL 3561971 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2012); McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1744 JCM CWH, 2014 WL 2742874 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014). Although appointment as interim class counsel does not appear to be a requirement for either collective certification or approval of opt-in notices, pragmatic FLSA plaintiffs seeking to conditionally certify their collectives move for such appointment simultaneously.

  2. Porteous v. Capital One Servs. II, LLC

    Case No. 2:17-CV-2866 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Jul. 17, 2018)

    Generally, NRS § 608.016, NRS § 608.018, and NRS § 608.140 do not grant plaintiff a private right of action. This court has ruled on multiple occasions that no private right of action exists with regards to enforcing NRS §§ 608.010, et. seq. and 608.020, et. seq. E.g., McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1744-JCM-CWH, 2014 WL 2742874, at *3 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014); Dannenbring v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 907 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1218 (D. Nev. 2013) (concluding "that there is no private right of action under NRS § 608.018.").

  3. Clark v. Bank of Am., N.A.

    Case No.: 2:16-cv-02228-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Aug. 30, 2017)

    (MTD 13:17-19). Indeed, this District has ruled on multiple occasions that these statutes do not provide for a private right of action. See, e.g., Johnson, 2015 WL 433503, at *4; McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1744-JCM-CWH, 2014 WL 2742874, at *3 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014); Dannenbring v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 907 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1218 (D. Nev.2013) (concluding "that there is no private right of action under NRS § 608.018"). Because of this, the Court continues to hold that no private right of action exists under NRS § 608.016 and NRS § 608.018 and therefore concludes that Plaintiffs' second cause of action is barred as a matter of law.

  4. Sargent v. HG Staffing, LLC

    3:13-CV-00453-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 11, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    However, recent case law from this district has held that no private right of action exists to enforce labor statutes arising from any of the statutes at issue here. See Johnson v. Pink Spot Vapors Inc., No. 2:14-CV-1960-JCM-GWF, 2015 WL 433503, at *5 (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2015) (holding that no private right of action exists under NRS 608.018 and NRS 608.020 without a contractual claim); Miranda v. O'Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-00878-RCJ, 2014 WL 4231372, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 26, 2014) (holding that there is no private right of action under NRS 608.100 and dismissing claims under NRS 608.106, 608.018, and 608.020-.050 because the private right of action that can be implied under NRS 608.140 only reasonably includes pre-wage-and-overtime-law contractual claims); McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1744-JCM-CWH, 2014 WL 2742874, at *3 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014) (holding that no private right of action exists to enforce labor statutes arising from NRS 608.010 et. seq. and 608.020 et. seq and that NRS 608.140 only provides private rights of action for contractual claims); Dannenbring v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 907 F.Supp.2d 1214, 1219 (D.Nev.2013) (finding that NRS 608.140 implies a private right of action to recover in contract only and dismissing NRS 608.140, 608.018, 608.020, and 608.040 claims); Descutner v. Newmont USA Ltd., 3:13-cv-00371-RCJ-VPC, 2012 WL 5387703, *2 (D.Nev.2012) (finding no private right of action under NRS 608.018 or NRS 608.100); Garcia v. Interstate Plumbing & Air Conditioning, LLC, No. 2:10-CV-410-RCJ-RJJ, 2011 WL 468439, at *6 (D. Nev. Feb. 4, 2011) (holding that NRS 608.018 does not provide for a private right of action because it is enforced by the Nevada Labor Commissioner); Lucas v. Bell Trans, No. 2:08-CV-01792-RCJ-RJJ, 2009 WL 2424557, at *4 (D. Nev. June 24, 2009) (holding that there is no private right of actio

  5. Hanks v. Briad Rest. Grp., L.L.C.

    Case No.: 2:14-cv-00786-GMN-PAL (D. Nev. Jul. 27, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    This finding is in accord with several courts in the District of Nevada that have already addressed this question and found that the two-year limitations period in section 608.260 applied to claims arising under the Minimum Wage Amendment. See Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 902 (9th Cir. 2013) cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2819 (2014) (affirming the district court's application of the two-year limitations period in section 608.260 for failing to properly raise the issue on appeal); see also Tyus v. Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc., No. 214-CV-00729-GMN-VCF, 2015 WL 1137734, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Mar. 13, 2015); McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01744-JCM-CWH, 2014 WL 2742874, at *4 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014). But see Sheffer v. U.S. Airways, Inc., No. 3:15-CV-00204-RCJ, 2015 WL 3458192, at *2-3 (D. Nev. June 1, 2015) (finding without addressing the prior cases applying the limitation period in section 608.260, including an order written by the same judge, that the general three-year limitations period for statutory causes of action in Nevada Revised Statute § 11.190(3)(a) applied to claims brought under the Minimum Wage Amendment).

  6. Tyus v. Wendy's of Las Vegas, Inc.

    Case No.: 2:14-cv-00729-GMN-VCF (D. Nev. Mar. 13, 2015)

    The Ninth Circuit and the District of Nevada have both addressed this question. See Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2013); see also McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01744-JCM-CWH, 2014 WL 2742874 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014). In Rivera, the district court held that, although the Minimum Wage Amendment is silent on the limitation period for minimum wage actions, such silence did not imply a repeal of the two-year limitation period of NRS 608.260, and dismissed all wage claims accruing before the two-year limitation period.

  7. Johnson v. Pink Spot Vapors Inc.

    Case No. 2:14-CV-1960 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2015)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that no private right of action exists under NRS 608.018 and NRS 608.020 without a contractual claim

    Turning to the first allegation, failure to pay overtime wages under NRS § 608.018, this court has ruled on multiple occasions that this statute does not provide for a private right of action. E.g., McDonagh v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-1744 JCM CWH, 2014 WL 2742874, at *3 (D. Nev. June 17, 2014); Dannenbring v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 907 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1218 (D. Nev. 2013) (concluding "that there is no private right of action under NRS § 608.018."). Nonetheless, plaintiffs assert that NRS § 608.140 implies the Nevada Legislature's intent to allow private action based on the statute's provision for collecting attorney fees.