A CAB, LLC v. MURRAY
2021 NV 84
| Nev. | 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Michael Murray and Michael Reno (class representatives) sued A Cab, LLC (later A Cab Series, LLC) alleging violations of Nevada's Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) for pay periods July 1, 2007–Dec. 31, 2015; class certified.
- A Cab produced computerized payroll data for 2013–2015 (including hours) but provided pre‑2013 handwritten trip sheets that did not show computed hours per shift in the employer's records format.
- The district court appointed a special master to compute hours from trip sheets after finding A Cab’s records noncompliant; A Cab failed to pay special‑master fees, so plaintiffs’ expert used approximation (average hours/shift from 2013–2015) to calculate pre‑2013 damages.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the drivers, severed claims against owner Creighton Nady, tolled the statute of limitations based on its reading of the MWA notice requirement, amended the judgment to add “A Cab Series, LLC,” and awarded attorney fees and costs (including expert fees); defendants appealed.
- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on liability and use of reasonable approximation evidence, reversed equitable tolling of the statute of limitations (limiting recovery to two years before filing), overruled Castillo to allow aggregation of class members’ damages for district court jurisdiction, reversed and remanded attorney‑fees and costs awards for further factfinding, and remanded the writ‑of‑execution/quash issue for evidentiary hearing on series‑LLC structure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aggregation / subject‑matter jurisdiction | Class may aggregate individual claims to meet district court amount‑in‑controversy | Individual class members’ claims cannot be aggregated (Castillo) so no district court jurisdiction | Overruled Castillo to the extent inconsistent; class aggregate controls for jurisdiction — district court had jurisdiction |
| MWA annual notice / tolling statute of limitations | Employer failed to provide written notice to each employee so equitable tolling applies, extending class period | Posting in common work area satisfied MWA notice; no tolling beyond two‑year limitation | Posting in conspicuous common area satisfies MWA notice; equitable tolling reversed — recoverable period limited to two years before filing |
| Damages calculation & summary judgment (2013–2015) | Plaintiffs’ expert calculations from employer’s computerized payroll are accurate and support summary judgment | Employer challenges computations and contends material factual disputes exist | Computerized records were adequate; plaintiffs’ spreadsheet calculations were reliable — summary judgment affirmed for 2013–2015 |
| Damages calculation & summary judgment (pre‑2013) | Plaintiffs may approximate damages (Mount Clemens) because employer failed to keep/provide required hours records and refused to fund special master | A Cab provided sufficient records (trip sheets + computer data); approximation improper; special master burden should be plaintiffs’ | Employer violated NRS 608.115 recordkeeping; plaintiffs’ approximations (using 2013–2015 average hours/shift) were reasonable — summary judgment affirmed for pre‑2013 within two‑year limit; remand to recompute damages per limitations ruling |
| Severance of claims against Nady | Severance appropriate to advance resolution against corporate defendants and conserve resources | Severance was an abuse of discretion and used to gain artificial finality | Reviewed for abuse of discretion; severance proper under NRCP 21 (factors such as different evidence and potential redundancy) — no abuse found |
| Attorney fees, costs, and expert fees | Plaintiffs entitled to reasonable fees and costs under MWA; requested documentation supports award | Fees/costs excessive; documentation insufficient; expert fees exceed statutory cap and require detailed justification | Award reversed and remanded: district court must reassess fee reasonableness under Brunzell and re‑evaluate costs and excess expert fees using Frazier factors and proper documentation |
| Amendment of judgment & writ/quash re: Series LLC | ‘‘A Cab Series, LLC’’ is the same entity/name change; amendment and collection against accounts proper | Series entities are distinct; NRS 86.296 shields separate series and collection requires evidentiary proof | Judgment amendment to reflect name change was permissible; but district court erred by denying motion to quash garnishment without evidentiary hearing on whether separate series exist — remanded for hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo v. United Fed. Credit Union, 134 Nev. 13, 409 P.3d 54 (Nev. 2018) (aggregation of class claims for jurisdiction discussed and partially overruled here)
- Anderson v. Mount Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (permitting damages approximation when employer fails to keep required records)
- Bombardier Transp. (Holdings) USA, Inc. v. Nev. Labor Comm'r, 135 Nev. 15, 433 P.3d 248 (Nev. 2019) (endorsing Mount Clemens approach in Nevada wage‑and‑hour context)
- Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969) (factors for assessing reasonableness of attorney‑fee awards)
- Frazier v. Drake, 131 Nev. 632, 357 P.3d 365 (Nev. 2015) (factors for awarding expert witness fees exceeding statutory limits)