Lescinsky v. Clark County School District

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JAMES LESCINSKY, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00290-RFB-NJK 9 Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. [Docket Nos. 16-17] CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 12 Defendant(s).

13 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions for conditional certification and for miscellaneous relief. Docket Nos. 16-17. Defendant filed a response and Plaintiff filed a reply.

15 Docket Nos. 18, 21. The motions are properly resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1.

16 For the reasons discussed below, both motions are DENIED without prejudice.

17 Litigants seeking relief from the Court bear a basic burden of presenting meaningful discussion, including addressing threshold requirements and acknowledging applicable legal authority. The instant motion practice is deficient in several respects. For example, the motion references a lack of Ninth Circuit authority regarding the “similarly situated” standard and asks for adoption of district court and out-of-circuit caselaw as to the two-step process, see Mot. at 4, when there is existing Ninth Circuit authority that bears on those issues, see Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1108-17 (9th Cir. 2018) (addressing the two-step process and the “similarly situated” standard). As another example, Plaintiff asserts in reply that this case was filed in a dual capacity, see Reply at 2, but this representation is premised solely on a vague reference to the complaint rather than any discussion of the actual contents of the complaint, but see Gessele v. Jack In The Box, Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1141, 1158-60 (D. Or. 2014) (collecting cases and analyzing the particular language in the complaint in finding the plaintiffs had not established 1} that they brought the case in a dual capacity). As another example, the response attempts to avoid 2|| disclosure of contact information based on a state law provision, Resp. at 9 (providing one 3]) paragraph of discussion), but neither party addresses the threshold choice-of-law analysis of 4|| whether or how that state law provision applies in this federal-question case, cf. Walker v. N. Las 5|| Vegas Police Dep’t, 2015 WL 8328263, at *5 (D. Nev. Dec. 8, 2015) (discussing N.R.S. 289.025 6|| in the context of a federal-question case).!

7 In light of the above, the motions for conditional certification and miscellaneous relief are DENIED without prejudice.”, Any renewed motions must be filed by December 30, 2020. Such 9|| motion practice must include meaningful discussion supported by citation to appropriate legal authority, including with respect to implicated threshold issues." 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: December 17, 2020 14 nite States Ma eistrate Judge ———__________ ' Plaintiff argues in reply that application of state law would run afoul of the Supremacy Clause by interfering with enforcement of federal policy, relying on a case addressing a land dispute involving the United States. Reply at 11-12 (quoting Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174 (9th Cir. 1979)). It is unclear whether such a proposition is implicated in the event state law does not apply as a threshold choice-of-law matter. > To be clear, the Court is not rendering any opinion herein on the merits, but is instead 26|| identifying issues that must be better developed by the parties.

27 3 The Court has not catalogued herein all of the ill-developed arguments. Counsel are cautioned that any renewed motion practice must provide fulsome discussion as to all arguments 28] even if not addressed explicitly herein.