Murray v. Dubric ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    MICHAEL MURRAY; MICHAEL RENO; No. 83492
    MICHAEL SARGEANT,
    INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
    A CLASS OF PERSONS SIMILARLY
    SITUATED; MARCO BAKHTIARI; LL = 5
    MICHAEL BRAUCHLE; THOMAS |
    COHOON; GARY GRAY; JORDAN AUG 11 2022
    HANSEN: ROGER KELLER; CHRIS D.
    NORVELL; POLLY RHOLAS; AND CLERICOE SUPREME COURT
    GERRIE WEAVER, oA AN
    Appellants,
    vs.
    JASMINKA DUBRIC, INDIVIDUALLY
    AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE
    SIMILARLY SITUATED; A CAB, LLC, A
    NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
    COMPANY; A CAB SERIES LLC;
    EMPLOYEE LEASING COMPANY, A
    NEVADA SERIES LIMITED LIABILITY
    COMPANY; AND CREIGHTON J.
    NADY, AN INDIVIDUAL,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
    This is an appeal from a district court order approving a class
    action settlement. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen
    E. Delaney, Judge.!
    Appellants and respondent Jasminka Dubric are taxi drivers
    who allege that their employer, respondents A Cab, LLC, and A Cab Series
    LLC, Employing Leasing Company (collectively, the A Cab respondents)
    1Pursuant to NRAP 34(f(1), we have determined that oral argument
    is not warranted.
    Supreme Court
    OF
    Nevaba
    (0) 19474 aes
    S|
    failed to pay them and other drivers minimum wage. The taxi drivers filed
    two separate class action suits against the A Cab respondents: the
    underlying matter brought by Dubric (the Dubric action) and another
    brought by appellants Michael! Murray, Michael Reno, and Michael
    Sargeant (collectively, the Murray intervenors) (the Murray action).? The
    Murray intervenors secured a judgment against the A Cab respondents in
    the Murray action, see A Cab, LLC v. Murray, 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 
    501 P.3d 961
     (2021), and then intervened in the Dubric action, objecting to the
    proposed class action settlement because of its potential impact on the
    judgment in the Murray action. The remaining appellants are unnamed
    class members of both the Murray action and the Dubric action who objected
    to the Dubric settlement.
    The Murray intervenors unsuccessfully sought to recuse or
    disqualify Judge Kathleen Delaney from presiding over the Dubric action
    due to alleged bias toward their counsel. After sending notice to all
    potential class members, class counsel in the Dubric action received nine
    objections to the proposed class settlement and only one member, in
    addition to the Murray intervenors, opted out.* Thereafter, the district
    court conducted a final fairness hearing and granted respondents’ joint
    2While there is some overlap of class membership, the Dubric class
    action settlement encompasses claims that go beyond the timeframe of
    those resolved in the Murray class action.
    8This court denied appellants’ previous request for extraordinary
    relief in which they sought an order requiring the district court to allow
    their class counsel to opt out from the Dubric settlement on behalf of all
    members of the Murray class. See Murray v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    No. 82126, 
    2020 WL 7296993
     (Nev. Dec. 10, 2020) (Order Denying Petition
    for Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus).
    Supreme Count
    OF
    NEVADA 2
    (0) 1987A 110 Nev. 440
    , 446, 
    874 P.2d 729
    , 734 (1994)
    (defining an aggrieved party as one whose personal or property rights are
    adversely and substantially affected). Although the Murray intervenors
    cannot demonstrate that they are individually aggrieved because they were
    not included in the Dubric settlement class, we conclude that they have
    standing as class representatives to assert claims on behalf of those Murray
    class action members who may be adversely affected by the Duwbric
    settlement. See Las Vegas Police Protective Ass'n Metro, Inc. v. Eighth
    Judicial Dist. Court, 
    122 Nev. 230
    , 239, 
    130 P.3d 182
    , 189 (2006) (providing
    that intervenors have “a right to appeal independent from that of the
    original parties” so long as they are also aggrieved parties pursuant to
    NRAP 3A(a)). And this court has previously recognized that unnamed class
    members who objected to a proposed settlement have standing to appeal
    that settlement. See Marcuse v. Del Webb Cmtys., Inc., 
    123 Nev. 278
    , 285,
    
    163 P.3d 462
    , 467 (2007) (concluding that unnamed alaas members “had
    standing to object to [a] proposed settlement and to appeal the district
    court’s order dismissing the class action based on the settlement”).
    Supneme Count
    OF
    NEVADA 3
    (0) 147A eee
    Next, we reject appellants’ challenge to the order denying the
    motion to disqualify Judge Delaney. The Murray intervenors’ motion to
    intervene in the Dubric class action was still pending when they sought
    Judge Delaney’s disqualification. Therefore, the Murray intervenors were
    not yet parties to the Dubric class action, see Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v.
    Rowan, 
    107 Nev. 362
    , 363, 
    812 P.2d 350
    , 350 (1991) ([A] proposed
    intervenor does not become a party to a lawsuit unless and until the district
    court grants a motion to intervene.”), and thus lacked standing to move to
    disqualify Judge Delaney. See NRS 1.235(1) (providing that “[a]ny party to
    an action [may] seek[] to disqualify a judge for actual or implied bias”
    (emphasis added)). As such, we conclude that the district court did not
    abuse its discretion when it denied the motion to disqualify. See Ivey v.
    Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    129 Nev. 154
    , 162, 
    299 P.3d 354
    , 359 (2013)
    (reviewing the denial of a motion to disqualify for an abuse of discretion).
    We also reject appellants’ challenge to Dubric serving as the
    class representative because she is a judgment debtor of the A Cab
    respondents in a related federal action. The judgment that forms the basis
    of Dubric’s purported conflict of interest did not arise until after the
    respondents reached a settlement in the Dubric action and the record does
    not otherwise demonstrate that she had an injury or “interest in the
    outcome of the litigation” that differed from the other class members such
    that she could not “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”*
    Jane Doe Dancer I-VII v. Golden Coin, Ltd., 124 Nev 28, 34-35, 
    176 P.3d 271
    , 275-76 (2008) (discussing the prerequisites for serving as a class
    representative).
    4We are not persuaded by appellants’ remaining arguments regarding
    Dubric’s standing to serve as class representative.
    Supreme Court
    OF
    Nevapa 4
    (0) 19474 aE
    Finally, while appellants advance several arguments contesting
    the Dubric settlement terms, they fail to point to any Nevada caselaw or
    statute that would require reversal.5 And although we decline appellants’
    invitation to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s eight-factor test for determining
    whether a proposed class action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable
    at this time, see Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 
    361 F.3d 566
    , 575 (9th
    Cir. 2004),° we note that the district court here appeared to consider many
    of those factors and the Dubric settlement would likely satisfy that test if
    applied. Indeed, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
    decision to approve the Dubric class settlement. See Marcuse, 123 Nev. at
    286, 163 P.3d at 467 (reviewing a district court’s approval of a class action
    settlement for an abuse of discretion). The record demonstrates that
    respondents reached the settlement as the result of lengthy negotiations
    5We decline to consider appellants’ argument that the district court
    lacked subject matter jurisdiction to approve the Dubric settlement because
    appellants fail to support this argument with citation to relevant authority.
    See Edwards v. Emperor’s Garden Rest., 
    122 Nev. 317
    , 330 n.38, 
    130 P.3d 1280
    , 1288 n.38 (2006) (explaining that a party is responsible for supporting
    its arguments with salient authority). We also decline to address
    appellants’ request that this court impose monetary sanctions against
    Dubric’s counsel pursuant to NRS 7.085, raised for the first time in their
    reply brief. See Phillips v. Mercer, 
    94 Nev. 279
    , 283, 
    579 P.2d 174
    , 176
    (1978).
    - 6We note that Churchill Village, 
    361 F.3d at 575
    , concerned whether
    a proposed class settlement was fair and adequate, an explicit requirement
    under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, whereas the Nevada Rules of
    Civil Procedure do not contain the same requirement. Compare FRCP
    23(e)(2) (providing that a court may only approve a proposed settlement
    upon “finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate”), with NRCP 23(f)
    (requiring court approval before “[a] class action [may] be dismissed or
    compromised”).
    Supreme Count
    OF
    NEVADA 5
    (0) 147A EBD
    after conducting a significant amount of discovery and with the assistance
    of both a jointly retained expert and an experienced judicial officer. And
    although there were objections to the settlement, the number of objections
    represented only a small fraction of the total class, and those objectors chose
    not to opt out of the settlement. Lastly, we note that no Nevada caselaw or
    statute requires the district court to make specific findings regarding the
    individual objections to a proposed class settlement or its basis for
    approving such a settlement as appellants suggest. Based upon the
    foregoing, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    CM CS,
    yw
    q -
    Parraguirre
    Aas tos8, J. Dito? Ji
    Hardesty Silver
    ec: Hon. Kathleen EK. Delaney, District Judge
    William C. Turner, Settlement Judge
    Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation
    Rodriguez Law Offices, P.C.
    Bourassa Law Group, LLC
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SuprREME Court
    OF
    NEVADA
    (O) (987A SRR
    Sir ESI ae