Daprizio v. Harrah’s Las Vegas, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00604-GMN, 2010 WL 3259920 (D. Nev. Aug 17, 2010).
This case is probably not a case of what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Although the plaintiff failed to establish CAFA jurisdiction over the state law claims, the District Court in Nevada retained the action by exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The plaintiff, Kimberley Daprizio, a dealer at a casino property owned and operated by the defendants, Harrah’s Las Vegas, Inc. and Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc., brought a representative action alleging that the defendants had both a policy and practice of not fully compensating its employees for time on the job.
The plaintiff claimed that she and her fellow dealers were required to attend a 10-to-15 minute mandatory and work related meeting before each shift. The defendants, however, did not compensate dealers for their time spent participating in these pre-shift meetings. The plaintiff asserted two causes of action: (1) violation of the FLSA, and (2) violation of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS); and she invoked CAFA to extend the suit to all employees who have encountered similar treatment within the previous three years.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss complaint arguing that the plaintiff’s complaint was legally insufficient.
The District Court granted the motion in part and denied in part.
The plaintiff alleged jurisdiction under the FLSA and CAFA. The Court observed that it had original jurisdiction over the FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. §216(b) of the FLSA.
Regarding the state law class action under the NRS, the plaintiff relied on CAFA for the District Court’s jurisdiction. The Court noted that 28 U.S.C. §1332(d) of CAFA grants district courts original jurisdiction when the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and there is minimal diversity between the parties. In the present case, however, there was no allegation in the complaint of any facts supporting minimal diversity between any parties. All the parties were Nevada citizens, and the putative class members were alleged to be situated similarly to the plaintiff. Moreover, CAFA will not support jurisdiction where “two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed.” Therefore, the Court found that there was no original jurisdiction under CAFA.
Although, the Court had no original jurisdiction over the state law action, it exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state law class actions under §1367(c).