ECF Amended Complaint

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37
Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 17
THE OMARA LAW FIRM, P.C.

DAVID C. OMARA, SBN 8599
WILLIAM M. OMARA, SBN 00837
311 E. Liberty Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
Telephone: (775)323-1321
Facsimile: (775)323-4082
E-mail: info@omaralaw.net
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
LIONEL Z. GLANCY
MARC L. GODINO
KEVIN F. RUF
CASEY E. SADLER
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile:
(310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[Additional Counsel on signature Page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No.: 3:12-cv-00395-HDM-VPC

DANIEL SMALL, CAROLYN SMALL,
WILLIAM CURTIN, DAVID COHEN,
LANETTE LAWRENCE, AND LOUISE
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COLLARD, Individually, and on Behalf of All
COMPLAINT
Other Persons Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
SOUTHERN NEVADA,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CENTER
OF
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs DANIEL SMALL, CAROLYN SMALL, WILLIAM CURTIN, DAVID COHEN,
LANETTE LAWRENCE, and LOUISE COLLARD individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees (collectively Plaintiffs), by and through their counsel, bring claims as a Collective
Action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. (the "FLSA"), and as a Class
Action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 and in accordance with Nevada state
wage and hour law against Defendant, its subsidiaries and affiliates, and allege, upon personal belief
as to themselves and their own acts, and as for all other matters, upon information and belief, and based
upon the investigation made by their counsel, as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b),
which provides that suit under the FLSA "may be maintained against any employer ... in any Federal or
State court of competent jurisdiction." The named Plaintiffs have all signed opt-in consent forms to
join this lawsuit (Exhibit A-F).
2.
This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
3.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367.
4.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because Defendant
resides in and does business within this District. In addition, a substantial part of the events and
omissions giving rise to the claims pleaded in this Complaint occurred within this District.
PARTIES
5.
Daniel Small is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
respiratory therapist during the applicable statute of limitations period.

6.
Daniel Small is employed by Defendant as an "employee" as defined by Section 3(e)(1)
of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

7.
Carolyn Small is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

2

8.
Carolyn Small is employed by Defendant as an "employee" as defined by Section 3(e)(1)

9.
William Curtin is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

10.
William Curtin is employed by Defendant as an "employee" as defined by Section
3(e)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

11.
David Cohen is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
registered nurse during the applicable statute of limitations period.

12.
David Cohen is employed by Defendant as an employee as defined by Section 3(e)(1)

13.
Lanette Lawrence is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
admitting representative during the applicable statute of limitations period.

14.
Lanette Lawrence is employed by Defendant as an employee as defined by Section

15.
Louise Collard is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
electrocardiogram technician (EKG technician) during the applicable statute of limitations period.
16.
Louise Collard is employed by Defendant as an employee as defined by Section

17.
Named Plaintiffs bring this FLSA claim on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated employees who currently work, or who worked as "respiratory therapists, registered
nurses, admitting representatives, unit clerks, unit secretaries, environmental waste
handlers, and any other similarly situated hourly employees at any time during the three-year
period immediately preceding the filing of the original Complaint (hereinafter "FLSA Violation
Period"), for the Defendant.
18.
Upon information and belief, it is alleged that at all times relevant hereto, Defendant
employer, University of Medical Center of Southern Nevada (hereinafter UMC or Defendant), was
3
and is doing business as a county hospital pursuant to NRS 450, et seq., and is domiciled within the
State of Nevada, and is an employer of Plaintiffs within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 203(d) of the FLSA.
19.
Upon information and belief, Defendant exercises direct control over the hours and
wages of named Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated hourly employees employed at University
Medical Center of Southern Nevada.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20.
Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as hourly-paid non-exempt employees during the
statutory period. Plaintiffs within each of the collective defined herein, and all others similarly situated
within each of the collective classes defined herein, all shared similar job titles, training, job
descriptions, job requirements and compensation plans, amongst other things.
21.
Defendant managed Plaintiffs work, including the amount of hours worked. Defendant
dictated, controlled and ratified the wages and hours and all related employee compensation policies.
22.
Plaintiffs, and the collective classes were classified by Defendant as non-exempt under
the FLSA and Nevada wage laws. Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiffs an hourly rate for all time
worked.
23.
Despite the agreement to pay Plaintiffs for all time worked, Defendant violated federal
and state wage laws by automatically deducting 30 minutes each day for meal break times regardless of
whether a bona fide 30-minute meal break was actually taken. Defendant's policy (hereinafter OnDuty Meal Policy) was uniform and applied to Plaintiffs and the collective classes. Defendant did not
maintain proper time records reflecting whether Plaintiffs took meal breaks or worked through meal
breaks during the statutory period.
24.
Defendant improperly failed to pay Plaintiffs and the collective classes all
compensation rightfully due, including but not limited to time spent working through meal breaks and
overtime pay.
25.
Defendant knew, and was aware at all times, of the above mentioned violations.
26.
The conduct alleged above reduced Defendant's labor and payroll costs.
27.
As evidence of the widespread and serious nature of Plaintiffs' claims,

4
Defendant engaged in a hospital-wide remediation campaign shortly after the filing of

Plaintiffs' complaint. This remediation campaign consisted of, among other items, the
institution of a new timekeeping system and practices designed to ensure Plaintiffs and the
collective classes receive their overtime and meal breaks.
28.
Plaintiffs and the collective classes were subject to Defendant's uniform policies and
practices and were victims of Defendant's schemes to deprive them of regular wages and overtime
pay. As a result of Defendant's improper and willful failure to pay Plaintiffs in accordance with the
requirements of federal and state wage and hour laws, Plaintiffs and the collective classes suffered lost
wages and other damages.
FLSA COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
29.
Named Plaintiffs Daniel Small, Carolyn Small, William Curtin, David Cohen, Lanette
Lawrence, and Louise Collard bring this case as a collective action on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully with wages, statutory penalties, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other damages owed.
30.
The proposed opt-in Collective Class and Sub-Classes of similarly situated persons are
defined as:
A.
The Class
a.
B.
All individuals who were employed or are currently employed by

the Defendant, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies as hourly
employees at any time during the relevant statute of limitations
period.
Sub-Class (I)
a. All individuals who were employed or are currently employed by
the Defendant, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies as
respiratory therapists or any other similarly titled position at any
time during the relevant statute of limitations period.
C.
Sub-Class (II)
the Defendant, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies as registered
5
nurses or any other similarly titled position at any time during the
relevant statute of limitations period.
D.
Sub-Class (III)
a.
E.

the Defendant, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies as admitting
representatives or any other similarly titled position at any time
during the relevant statute of limitations period.
Sub-Class (IV)
the Defendant, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies as unit
clerks, unit secretaries, environmental waste handlers and any other
similarly situated hourly employee at any time during the relevant
statute of limitations period.
31.
This action is properly maintained as a collective action because the named Plaintiffs are
similarly situated to the members of the collective classes with respect to job title, job description,
training requirements, job duties, compensation plan, Defendant's On-Duty Break policy, Defendant's
failure to pay overtime hours, and the wage and hour violations alleged in this Complaint, amongst
other things.
32.
Defendant encouraged, suffered and permitted the named Plaintiffs and collective classes
to work more than forty (40) hours per week without the proper overtime compensation.
33.
Defendant knew that the named Plaintiffs and the collective classes performed work that
required additional wages and overtime compensation to be paid. Nonetheless, Defendant operated
under its On-Duty Meal Policy, as described above, to deprive the named Plaintiffs and the collective
classes of wages and overtime compensation.
34.
Defendant's conduct, as alleged herein, was willful and has caused significant damage to
the named Plaintiffs and collective classes.

35.
Defendant is liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate the named
Plaintiffs and the collective classes. Plaintiffs request that the Court authorize notice to the members
of the collective classes to inform them of the pendency of this action and their right to "opt-in" to this
lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), for the purpose of seeking unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages under the FLSA, and the other relief requested herein.
6
36.
Plaintiffs estimate that there are at least fifty members of the respiratory therapists
collective sub-class, at least thousands of members of the registered nurses collective sub-class, at least
fifty members of the admitting representatives collective sub-class, and at least hundreds of the unit
clerks, unit secretaries, environmental waste handlers and any other similarly situated hourly employees
of the collective sub-class. The precise number of collective class members can be easily ascertained by
using Defendant's payroll and personnel records. Given the composition and size of the classes,
members of the collective classes may be informed of the pendency of this action directly via U.S.
mail, e-mail and by posting notice in Defendant's hospital.
NEVADA STATE LAW CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
37.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by this reference all the paragraphs above in this Complaint as
though fully set forth herein.

38.
As hourly workers employed by Defendant in the state of Nevada, pursuant to a pay and
employment policy required by Defendant, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who were, are, or will be
employed by Defendant, as hourly employees who are required, suffered or permitted to work more than forty
(40) hours per week without the proper overtime compensation.
39.
Plaintiffs are members of the proposed Nevada State Classes and are typical of all members of
the Nevada State Classes, have a common issue of law and/or fact with all members of each Nevada State Classes,
and will adequately represent the Nevada State Classes in whether the Defendant employer required, suffered or
permitted Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, to work more than forty (40) hours per week without the
proper overtime compensation. The classes are also easily ascertainable from the records that the
Defendant is required by law to maintain.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
40.
Named Plaintiffs Daniel Small, Carolyn Small, William Curtin, David Cohen, Lanette
Lawrence, and Louise Collard bring claims for relief individually and as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b). The classes are defined as:
A.
The Class
7

period.
B.
Sub-Class (I)
C.
Sub-Class (II)
D.
Sub-Class (III)
a.
E.

Sub-Class (IV)
41.
This action is properly maintainable as a class action because:
a.
The classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
b.
There are questions of law or fact that are common to the classes;
c.
The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses
of the classes; and,
d.
The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and accurately protect the interests of the
classes.
Numerosity
42.
On information and belief, the total number of putative class members represents at least
fifty members of the respiratory therapists collective sub-class, at least thousands of members of the
registered nurses collective sub-class, at least fifty members of the admitting representatives collective
sub-class, and at least hundreds of the unit clerks, unit secretaries, environmental waste handlers and any
other similarly situated hourly employees of the collective sub-class. The exact number of class
members may be determined from Defendant's records.
Commonality
43.
There are numerous and substantial questions of law and fact common to members of the
state classes including, but not limited to, the following:

a. Whether Defendant failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours worked
by the class members;
b. Whether Defendant failed to compensate class members for all the work they
required, encouraged or permitted class members to perform;
c.
Whether Defendant had an On-Duty Meal Policy and automatically deducted 30

minutes per day from class members' pay;
d.
Whether Defendant made improper deductions from class members' pay for meal breaks
not taken;
e.
Whether Defendant failed to compensate class members for time they spent
working through their and meal periods;
f.
Whether Defendant failed to pay class members all compensation rightfully owed;
g. Whether Defendant failed to compensate class members for all work performed in excess of
40 hours per work week with overtime premium wages;
h. Whether Defendant failed to pay class members all wages due at the time of
separation from the company; and,
i. Whether the Defendant willfully failed to comply with state wage and hour laws.
44.
Plaintiffs anticipate that Defendant will raise defenses that are common to the classes.
Filed 12/13/12 Page 10 of 17
Adequacy
45.
The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes.
Plaintiffs have retained experienced counsel that are competent in the prosecution of complex
litigation and who have experience acting as class counsel specifically in wage and hour litigation.
Typicality
46.
The claims asserted by the named Plaintiffs are typical of the class members they seek to
represent. The named Plaintiffs have the same interests and suffer from the same injuries as the class
members.
47.
Upon information and belief, there are no other class members who have an
interest individually controlling the prosecution of his or her individual claims, especially in light of the
relatively small value of each claim and the difficulties involved in bringing individual litigation against
one's employer. However, if any such class member should become known, he or she can "opt out" of
this action pursuant to Rule 48.
Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate and a Class Action is
Superior to Joinder of Claims or Individual Lawsuits
49.
The numerous common questions of law and fact set forth in the commonality discussion
above predominate over individual questions because Defendant's On-Duty Meal Policy and other
policies and practices affected class members in the same manner: they were subjected to a policy of
suffering work without pay and improper deductions.
50.
A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication
of this controversy because the individual joinder of the parties is impracticable. Class action treatment
will allow a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single
forum simultaneously, efficiently and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expenses if
these claims were brought individually. Moreover, as the damages suffered by each class member
may be relatively small, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult for
plaintiffs to bring individual claims. The presentation of separate actions by individual class members
10
Filed 12/13/12 Page 11 of 17
could create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of
conduct for Defendant and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to
protect their interests.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
51.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
52.
The named Plaintiffs and the other respiratory therapists, registered nurses, admitting
representatives, unit clerks, unit secretaries, environmental waste handlers, and any other similarly
situated hourly employees are similarly situated individuals within the meaning of the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. 216(b).
53.
Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA states that an employee must be paid overtime, equal to at
least 1.5 times the employee's regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
54.
Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendant, but were not properly
paid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

55.
Through its actions, policies and practices, Defendant violated the FLSA by regularly and
repeatedly failing to compensate the named Plaintiffs and class members for all actual overtime worked.
56.
Defendant also willfully failed to pay wages, overtime pay and other benefits to the
named Plaintiffs and others by failing to keep accurate time records to avoid paying them overtime
wages and benefits.
57.
The foregoing actions of Defendant violated the FLSA.
58.
Defendant's actions were willful and not in good faith.
59.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have
suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of income and other damages.
60.
Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs and other members of the classes for actual damages,
liquidated damages and equitable relief, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b), as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
11
61.
Filed 12/13/12 Page 12 of 17
Plaintiffs are also entitled to injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing its
violation of the FLSA and other appropriate class-wide injunctive relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Nevada Revised Statues
(NRS) 608.016 & 608.018
62.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
63.
Plaintiffs are members of classes that meet the requirements for certification and
maintenance of a class action pursuant to Rule 23.

64.
Nevada Revised Statute 608.016 provides An employer shall pay to the employee
wages for each hour the employee works. An Employer shall not require an employee to work without
wages during a trial or break-in period.
65.
Nevada Revised Statute 608.012 defines wages as The amount which an employer
agrees to pay an employee for the time the employee has worked, computed in proportion to
time, and Commissions owed the employee.
66.
Nevada Revised Statute 608.018 provides An employer shall pay 1 1/2 times an
employees regular wage rate whenever an employee who receives compensation for
employment at a rate less than 1 1/2 times the minimum rate prescribed pursuant to NRS
608.250 works:
a.
b.
More than 40 hours in any scheduled week of work; or

More than 8 hours in any workday unless by mutual agreement the employee
works a scheduled 10 hours per day for 4 calendar days within any scheduled
week of work.
67.
Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into an agreement to pay Plaintiffs as non-exempt
employees for all the time they worked, including overtime, as required by the NRS.
68.
Defendant violated the NRS by regularly and repeatedly failing to properly
compensate Plaintiffs and class members for the actual time they worked each week.
69.
Defendant violated the NRS by failing to pay overtime pay and other benefits to
12
Filed 12/13/12 Page 13 of 17
Plaintiffs and class members.

70.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, named Plaintiffs and
class members have suffered and will continue to suffer lost wages and other damages.
71.
The Plaintiffs are also entitled to injunctive relief to prevent Defendant from continuing
its violation of these statutory provisions and other appropriate injunctive relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
72.
WHEREFORE, the named Plaintiffs Daniel Small, Carolyn Small, William Curtin, David
Cohen, Lanette Lawrence, and Louise Collard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
by and through their attorneys demand judgment against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiffs
and all others similarly situated, for a sum that will properly, adequately and completely compensate
Plaintiffs for the nature, extent and duration of their damages, the costs of this action and as
follows:
A. Order the Defendant to file with this Court and furnish to counsel a list of all names,
telephone numbers, home addresses and email addresses of all respiratory therapists,
registered nurses, admitting representatives, unit clerks, unit secretaries,
environmental waste handlers, and any other similarly situated hourly employees
who have worked for the Defendant within the last three years;
B.
Authorize Plaintiffs counsel to issue notice at the earliest possible time to all
respiratory therapists, registered nurses, admitting representatives, unit clerks, unit
secretaries, environmental waste handlers, and any other similarly situated hourly
employees who have worked for the Defendant within the last three years, informing
them that this action has been filed, of the nature of the action, and of their right to optin to this lawsuit if they were deprived of regular wage and overtime compensation;
C. Certify the Collective Class and Sub-Classes for First and Second Causes of Action as:
A.
The Class
period.
B.
Sub-Class (I)
13
Filed 12/13/12 Page 14 of 17

C.
Sub-Class (II)
D.
Sub-Class (III)
a.
E.

Sub-Class (IV)
D.
Appoint Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, and Tostrud Law Group, PC., as
counsel for the Plaintiffs;
E.
Declare and find that the Defendant committed one or more of the following acts:
F.
i.
Violated provisions of the FLSA by failing to pay regular wages, overtime

wages and other benefits to Plaintiffs and similarly situated persons who opt-in
to this action;
ii.
Willfully violated provisions of the FLSA; and
iii.
Violated provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes 608 et seq., by failing to

pay regular and overtime wages to the named Plaintiffs and class members.
Award compensatory damages, including all pay owed, in an amount according to

proof;
G. Award 2% per month interest on all overtime compensation due accruing from the date
such amounts were due until it is paid;
H. Award liquidated damages on all compensation due accruing from the date such
amounts were due;
14
I.
Filed 12/13/12 Page 15 of 17
Award all costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred prosecuting this claim;
J. Grant leave to amend to add claims under applicable state and federal laws;
K.
Grant leave to add additional plaintiffs by motion, the filing of written consent
forms, or any other method approved by the Court; and,
L. For such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: December 13, 2012
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
By: /s/ Marc L. Godino

Lionel Z. Glancy
Marc L. Godino
Kevin F. Ruf
Casey E. Sadler
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile:
(310) 201-9160
Email: info@glancylaw.com
Jon A. Tostrud
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200
Telephone: (310) 278-2600
Facsimile:
(310) 278-2640
Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
David C. OMara
William M. OMara
THE OMARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
311 E. Liberty Street
Reno, Nevada 89501
Telephone: (775)323-1321
Facsimile: (775)323-4082
Attorneys for Plaintiff
15
Filed 12/13/12 Page 16 of 17
PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC POSTING

AND BY MAIL ON ALL KNOWN NON-REGISTERED PARTIES
I, the undersigned, say:

I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the office of a member of the Bar of
a United States District Court. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My
business address is 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067.
On December 13, 2012, I caused to be served the following documents:
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
By posting this document to the ECF Website of the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, for receipt electronically by the parties listed on the attached Courts Service
List.
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 13, 2012, at Los Angeles, California.
s/ Marc L. Godino
Marc L. Godino
CM/ECF - nvd - District Version 4.2-
1 of 2
https://ecf.nvd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/MailList.pl?720263485426748-L_55...
Filed 12/13/12 Page 17 of 17
Electronic Mail Notice List

The following are those who are currently on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case.
Marc L. Godino
mgodino@glancylaw.com
William M. O'Mara
bill@omaralaw.net
David C OMara
david@omaralaw.net,val@omaralaw.net,adrian@omaralaw.net
Kevin F. Ruf
kevinruf@gmail.com
Jon A Tostrud
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com,acarter@tostrudlaw.com
Nicholas M Wieczorek
nwieczorek@mpplaw.com,llustig@mpplaw.com,dsurowiec@mpplaw.com,lwoodruff@mpplaw.com,avieira@mpplaw.com
Manual Notice List

The following is the list of attorneys who are not on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case (who therefore require manual
noticing). You may wish to use your mouse to select and copy this list into your word processing program in order to create
notices or labels for these recipients.
(No manual recipients)
12/13/2012 10:12 AM

ECF Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECF Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 1 of 17

THE OMARA LAW FIRM, P.C.

Case No.: 3:12-cv-00395-HDM-VPC

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 17

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because Defendant

Daniel Small is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

respiratory therapist during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Daniel Small is employed by Defendant as an "employee" as defined by Section 3(e)(1)

of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

Carolyn Small is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 3 of 17

respiratory therapist during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Carolyn Small is employed by Defendant as an "employee" as defined by Section 3(e)(1)

of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

William Curtin is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

respiratory therapist during the applicable statute of limitations period.

William Curtin is employed by Defendant as an "employee" as defined by Section

3(e)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

David Cohen is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

registered nurse during the applicable statute of limitations period.

David Cohen is employed by Defendant as an employee as defined by Section 3(e)(1)

of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

Lanette Lawrence is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

admitting representative during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Lanette Lawrence is employed by Defendant as an employee as defined by Section

3(e)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

Louise Collard is a resident of Nevada and worked for Defendant as a non-exempt

Louise Collard is employed by Defendant as an employee as defined by Section

3(e)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(e)(l).

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 4 of 17

Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as hourly-paid non-exempt employees during the

As evidence of the widespread and serious nature of Plaintiffs' claims,

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 5 of 17

Defendant engaged in a hospital-wide remediation campaign shortly after the filing of

All individuals who were employed or are currently employed by

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 6 of 17

All individuals who were employed or are currently employed by

the named Plaintiffs and collective classes.

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 7 of 17

though fully set forth herein.

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 8 of 17

All individuals who were employed or are currently employed by

All individuals who were employed or are currently employed by

This action is properly maintainable as a class action because:

The classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 9 of 17

state classes including, but not limited to, the following:

Whether Defendant had an On-Duty Meal Policy and automatically deducted 30

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 10 of 17

Case 3:12-cv-00395-HDM -VPC Document 37

Filed 12/13/12 Page 11 of 17

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

paid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.