Schrader v. Wynn
2:19-cv-02159
| D. Nev. | Feb 20, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Brenna Schrader filed a putative class action in Nevada state court (Sept. 26, 2019) alleging sex-based wage discrimination (Title VII/NRS), forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), RICO claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and FLSA wage claims; factual allegations include forced sexual conduct by Stephen A. Wynn and spa masseuses working off-the-clock.
- Defendants Wynn Las Vegas, LLC and Wynn Resorts, Ltd. removed the case to federal court on December 16, 2019; Stephen Wynn and Maurice Wooden later filed notices consenting to removal.
- The Court scheduled an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) for March 4, 2020 and the parties stipulated to extend defendants’ time to respond to the complaint to February 26, 2020.
- No answers or discovery had been exchanged by the stipulation date; defendants anticipated filing Rule 12 motions to dismiss raising threshold timeliness and sufficiency issues that could narrow or eliminate claims.
- The parties jointly moved to vacate the March 4 ENE, arguing that pending threshold motions and the absence of discovery prevent a meaningful ENE or any informed settlement discussion (including informing Rule 23(e) considerations); they reserved the right to request an ENE later if appropriate.
- The Court approved the stipulation ("IT IS SO ORDERED"), vacating the ENE; the stipulation preserved all claims and defenses and stated it was not made for delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ENE is appropriate at this early procedural stage | Schrader: ENE is premature because no responses, discovery, or class information exist to meaningfully evaluate claims or settlement | Defendants: ENE would be premature and wasteful while threshold 12(b) issues remain undecided | Court vacated the scheduled ENE and accepted that ENE is inappropriate now |
| Whether pending Rule 12 motions justify postponing ENE | Schrader: threshold motions may dispose of or narrow claims, so ENE should wait | Defendants: motions will raise timeliness and viability issues that must be resolved before productive settlement talks | Court found pending threshold motions provide sufficient grounds to vacate ENE |
| Whether lack of discovery prevents fair evaluation of class settlement factors (Rule 23(e)) | Schrader: absence of discovery prevents parties/Court from assessing strength of claims, class size, damages, or reaction of class members | Defendants: same; no database or evidence available now to evaluate class or settlement value | Court agreed lack of discovery weighs against conducting ENE or attempting settlement now |
| Whether stipulating to vacate ENE waives any claims or defenses | Schrader: stipulation is not a waiver of claims | Defendants: stipulation is not a waiver of defenses | Stipulation and Court order expressly preserve all claims and defenses; no waiver found |
Key Cases Cited
- Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) (court must determine fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of class settlements)
- Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) (factors to evaluate fairness of class settlements prior to certification)
- In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) (additional scrutiny for pre-certification settlements to detect collusion)