A CAB, LLC v. Murray

• Decision Date: 30 December 2021
• Docket Number: No. 77050,77050
• Parties: A CAB, LLC; and A Cab Series, LLC, Appellants, v. Michael MURRAY ; and Michael Reno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

501 P.3d 961

A CAB, LLC; and A Cab Series, LLC, Appellants,

v.Michael MURRAY ; and Michael Reno, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents.

No. 77050

Supreme Court of Nevada.

FILED DECEMBER 30, 2021

Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC, and Michael K. Wall, Las Vegas; Rodriguez Law Offices, P.C., and Esther Rodriguez, Las Vegas, for Appellants.

Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation and Leon Greenberg, Las Vegas, for Respondents.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, EN BANC.¹

OPINION

By the Court, STIGLICH, J.:

Under the Minimum Wage Act (MWA) of the Nevada Constitution, employers are required to pay their employees minimum wage and to annually notify employees of the minimum wage rate. Employers are also statutorily required to maintain records of wages and hours worked by employees and to readily provide that information to employees upon request.

Respondents Michael Murray and Michael Reno, the named representatives in this class action, were taxi drivers who brought suit against their former employer, appellants A Cab, LLC, and A Cab Series, LLC (collectively A Cab),² and its owner, alleging A Cab failed to pay them minimum wage. The district court severed the claims against A Cab's owner, Creighton Nady, and entered summary judgment for the drivers. A Cab appeals from the summary judgment, challenging certain interlocutory orders as well, and from several post-judgment orders.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. We must first consider subject matter jurisdiction, and after doing so, we conclude this matter was properly in front of the district court because plaintiffs in a class action may aggregate damages for jurisdiction. Accordingly, we overrule Castillo v. United Federal Credit Union , 134 Nev. 13, 409 P.3d 54 (2018), to the extent that it held to the contrary.

For the reasons discussed in this opinion, we further conclude that (1) the district court erred in tolling the statute of limitations because it incorrectly interpreted the MWA notice requirement, (2) damages were reasonably calculated using approximation evidence, (3) claims against A Cab, LLC's owner were properly severed, (4) the attorney fees award must be reconsidered for reasonableness, (5) the award of costs, including expert witness fees, must be reconsidered under the proper standards, (6) the judgment was properly amended to include the new name of A Cab, LLC, and (7) the district court erroneously denied a motion to quash a writ of execution without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

BACKGROUND

In 2006, Nevada voters amended the state constitution by enacting the MWA. Nev. Const. art. 15, § 16. The MWA requires, in part, that employers pay employees the minimum wage set forth therein, as adjusted yearly. Id. at § 16 (A). Following publication of the yearly adjustment, employers "shall provide written notification of the rate adjustments to each of [their] employees." Id.

Murray³ and Reno's 2012 district court class action complaint against A Cab and its owner alleged that A Cab failed to pay drivers the minimum wage under the MWA and compensation due to former employees under NRS 608.040.⁴ The drivers sought compensatory damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and punitive damages. Although taxicab drivers were exempt from statutory minimum wage protections when the complaint was filed, in 2014, we clarified that taxicab drivers were afforded minimum wage protections under the MWA. Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp ., 130 Nev. 484, 327 P.3d 518 (2014).

In 2015, A Cab offered to settle with Murray and Reno for $7,500 and $15,000, respectively, but they did not accept the offers. Also in 2015, the drivers amended their complaint to add Creighton Nady (the principal of A Cab) as a defendant. Two new claims were added specifically against Nady: one for civil conspiracy, concert of action, and liability as the alter ego of the corporate defendants; and the other for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the district court certified the class as "all persons employed by any of the defendants as taxi drivers in the State of Nevada at any[ ]time from July 1, 2007 [,] through December 31, 2015." Additionally, the district court equitably tolled the statute of limitations for drivers who were employed by A Cab on the annual minimum wage notification date because it found that A Cab did not provide proper annual notice for the minimum wage rate.

Throughout the litigation, the parties disputed what evidence should be provided to determine damages. In theory, minimum wage damages are simple to calculate: multiply the hours worked in a pay period by the applicable minimum hourly wage to calculate the minimum amount due, then subtract the actual pay received to determine whether a deficiency exists. For the time period between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015, that is what occurred. A Cab electronically provided the drivers with all relevant data points, and the damages calculations were easily performed, compiled, and submitted by the drivers to the court as proof of damages. For the period between July 1, 2007, and January 1, 2013, however, A Cab provided the information in a different format. The drivers were given data, in electronic format, for the wages paid and the number of shifts worked. A Cab failed to provide computed hours worked data, however. Instead, A Cab provided copies of the drivers’ handwritten "tripsheets," which reflected the hours actually worked during each shift. Extracting the needed hours-per-shift data from these tripsheets would have required extensive (and expensive) effort.

The district court found that supplying the hours-worked information only in the form of the tripsheets constituted noncompliance with the statutory requirements for employer record-keeping. Consequently, the district court appointed a special master to calculate the hours-per-shift information from the tripsheets and ordered A Cab to pay the special master's fees. A Cab failed to meet deadlines the district court set to pay the special master, however, so the drivers proved damages for the pre-2013 time period another way. The drivers’ expert calculated the average hours per shift using the data from the 2013-2015 time period and multiplied that estimated average by both the number of shifts per each pay period and the minimum wage per hour to determine the wages that should have been paid for each pay period. The amount actually paid per period was subtracted to determine the deficiency. For this period, the only estimated data point was the hours-per-shift. Against A Cab's objection, the district court accepted the drivers’ proof of damages.

The district court then severed the claims against Nady and granted summary judgment against A Cab, determining that the drivers were entitled to damages for A Cab's failure to pay minimum wages. The parties engaged in lengthy post-judgment motion practice. A Cab moved to reconsider and to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Murray and Reno had failed to demonstrate their claims met the minimum threshold amount for district court jurisdiction under this court's decision in Castillo v. United Federal Credit Union , 134 Nev. 13, 16, 409 P.3d 54, 57 (2018), and that there was no longer a claim for injunctive relief. The court denied the motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, concluding it did not believe it was devoid of jurisdiction in the matter. The drivers moved to amend the judgment to include "A Cab Series, LLC," as a defendant and for costs and attorney fees. The court granted these motions. A Cab appeals the summary judgment and the post-judgment orders.

DISCUSSION

District courts have original jurisdiction over class actions when the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the statutory threshold

A Cab argues that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no individual class member sought damages in an amount that met the statutory threshold. It argues that, per this court's decision in Castillo , individual class members’ claims may not be aggregated to establish district court jurisdiction. See Castillo v . United Fed. Credit Union , 134 Nev. 13, 16, 409 P.3d 54, 57 (2018). A Cab further contends that the district court did not have jurisdiction based on the drivers’ request for injunctive relief.⁵

In Nevada, justice courts have original jurisdiction over most actions seeking to recover less than a statutory amount-in-controversy threshold, which, when this action was filed in 2012, was $10,000.⁶ See 2011 Nev. Stat., ch. 253, § 54, at 1136 (amending NRS 4.370(1) and taking effect July 1, 2011); Castillo , 134 Nev. at 16, 409 P.3d at 57. District courts have original jurisdiction over matters in which the amount in controversy is greater than this statutory threshold. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6 (1).

Historically, whether aggregation of class claims to meet the statutory threshold to establish district court jurisdiction was permitted under the Nevada Constitution had never been meaningfully challenged. And NRCP 23 —setting out the rules for class actions—was silent on the issue prior to its amendment in 2019. In 2018, however, the ability to aggregate class claims to establish jurisdiction was directly challenged and heard by this court in Castillo.

In Castillo , plaintiffs in a consumer protection case sought to aggregate their claims to meet the statutory threshold amount to establish jurisdiction in the district court. 134 Nev. at 14, 409 P.3d at 56. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the district court did not have jurisdiction because each plaintiff failed to prove that they were individually entitled to damages in excess of the statutory threshold. Id. at 15, 409 P.3d at 56. The district court determined the plaintiffs could not aggregate their claims and dismissed the case. Id. The plaintiffs then appealed to this court. Id. Ultimately, a panel of this court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case,...