Ataviaous Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation

D. Nevada

Ataviaous Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation

DecidedOctober 7, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00017

StatusUnknown

This text of Ataviaous Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation (Ataviaous Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ataviaous Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 LAURA R. PETROFF, ESQ., admitted Pro Hac Vice lpetroff@winston.com 2 TRISTAN R. KIRK, ESQ., admitted Pro Hac Vice tkirk@winston.com 3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: 213.615.1700 5 Facsimile: 213.615.1750 6 TRAVIS F. CHANCE, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 13800 tchance@bhfs.com 7 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Telephone: 702.382.2101 9 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 10 Attorneys for Defendant THE HERTZ CORPORATION 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 ATAVIAOUS WILLIAMS, on behalf of CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00017-RFB-EJY herself and all other similarly situated 15 individual, 16 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DECISIONS ON 17 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE 18 THE HERTZ CORPORATION; and DOES 1 ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL through 50, inclusive, ARBITRATION AND PLAINTIFF’S 19 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 21 22 Plaintiff Ataviaous Williams (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record, the law 23 firm of Thierman Buck, and Defendant The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) by and through its counsel 24 of record, the law firms of Winston & Strawn LLP and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 25 (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate to stay discovery in this action as follows: 26 1. After meeting and conferring, the Parties stipulate to stay discovery in this action 27 and vacate all deadlines set in the Order on Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 15) 28 (“Scheduling Order”) pending the Court’s decisions on Hertz’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 1 Or, In the Alternative, To Compel Arbitration (“MSJ”) (Dkt. 20) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 2 to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion for Leave”) (Dkt. 27) given that the decisions in 3 each will have a significant impact on the case moving forward, including whether this action 4 remains before this Court at all, and the Parties mutually desire to conserve resources as well as 5 their own. 6 2. Requests to stay all discovery may be granted in this District when: (1) a pending 7 motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without 8 additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 9 potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for 10 relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 11 3. Plaintiff has set forth three causes of action in her First Amended Class Action 12 Complaint: (i) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Nevada Constitution and NRS 13 608.250; (ii) failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of NRS 608.140 and 14 608.016; and (iii) failure to timely pay all wages due and owing in violation of NRS 608.140 and 15 608.020-050. (See Dkt. 18.) These claims are based upon the allegation that Plaintiff regularly 16 worked more than eight (8) hours in a shift, but did not receive a full 30-minute uninterrupted 17 break on such shifts nor did she receive compensation for such breaks on such shifts. (Id., at ¶¶ 18 16-17.) 19 4. With respect to the first factor, Hertz filed its MSJ on April 18, 2025 (Dkt. 20). 20 The MSJ seeks dismissal of all three causes of action, in full and with prejudice, or, in the 21 alternative to compel arbitration of all three causes of action. (Id. at 2:1-24, 4:17-22, 7:18-13:19.) 22 Thus, the pending MSJ is potentially dispositive of all of Plaintiff’s claims, satisfying the first 23 Kor Media factor. 24 5. With respect to the second factor, Hertz MSJ can be decided without any 25 discovery at all. The MSJ argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred and subject to dismissal 26 because: (i) Nevada’s meal break law does not apply to employees covered by a collective 27 bargaining agreement; (ii) each claim is grounded in a collective bargaining agreement, and 28 therefore each is preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 1 U.S.C. § 185(a); and (iii) Plaintiff failed to exhaust the grievance procedures set forth in the 2 applicable collective bargaining agreement before filing suit. (Id. at 2:6-21, 4:10-16, 7:19-12:12.) 3 The MSJ also argues that Plaintiff’s claims should be compelled to arbitration if they are not 4 dismissed. (Id. at 2:22-24, 4:19-22, 12:13-13:15.) Resolution of these issues require reference to 5 nothing more than federal and state statutes and regulations and the applicable collective 6 bargaining agreement (which was submitted with the MSJ (see Dkt. 21-2)), which requires no 7 discovery whatsoever. Thus, the second Kor Media factor is satisfied. 8 6. With respect to the third factor, a “‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the 9 underlying motion is not intended to prejudge its outcome. Rather, this court’s role is to evaluate 10 the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery with the goal of accomplishing the 11 objectives of [FRCP] 1. With [FRCP] 1 as its prime directive, this court must decide whether it is 12 more just to speed the parties along in discovery and other proceedings while a dispositive motion 13 is pending, or whether it is more just to delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to 14 accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 15 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). 16 7. Hertz’s primary argument in its MSJ is that Plaintiff’s’ claims are barred as a 17 matter of state law. Specifically, the MSJ contends that each of Plaintiff’s claims is premised 18 upon alleged violations of Nevada’s meal break law (NRS 608.019), but the meal break law does 19 not apply to Plaintiff because her employment with Hertz was subject to and covered by a 20 collective bargaining agreement. (Dkt. 20, at 2:3-11, 7:19-9:19.) Hertz contends this is because 21 Nevada’s meal break law provides that it “does not apply to…[e]mployees included within the 22 provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.” NRS 608.019(3)(b). (Id.) As a result, the MSJ 23 argues that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Given the foregoing and Plaintiff’s pending 24 Motion for Leave (which if granted would add a claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting 25 Act), it is clearly more just to stay discovery here to accomplish the preliminary determination of 26 this case before extensive discovery is conducted, satisfying the third Kor Media factor. 27 Tradebay, supra. 28 1 8. The Parties agree that nothing herein shall be construed as Plaintiff’s admission as 2 to the merits of Hertz’s MSJ or as Hertz’s admission as to the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion for 3 Leave. 4 9. In addition, Hertz has agreed to provide certain class-related discovery as part of 5 the Parties’ stipulation. Plaintiff agrees and stipulates that by providing such class-related 6 discovery: (i) Hertz does not waive any arguments regarding class certification and expressly 7 reserves any and all available defenses and arguments; (ii) Hertz does not waive its right to 8 compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims in this action, including through its pending MSJ; and (iii) 9 Plaintiff waives any argument that Hertz has waived its right to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s 10 claims in this action. 11 10.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 LAURA R. PETROFF, ESQ., admitted Pro Hac Vice lpetroff@winston.com 2 TRISTAN R. KIRK, ESQ., admitted Pro Hac Vice tkirk@winston.com 3 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543 Telephone: 213.615.1700 5 Facsimile: 213.615.1750 6 TRAVIS F. CHANCE, ESQ., Nevada Bar No. 13800 tchance@bhfs.com 7 BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600 8 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 Telephone: 702.382.2101 9 Facsimile: 702.382.8135 10 Attorneys for Defendant THE HERTZ CORPORATION 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 ATAVIAOUS WILLIAMS, on behalf of CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00017-RFB-EJY herself and all other similarly situated 15 individual, 16 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING DECISIONS ON 17 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR, IN THE 18 THE HERTZ CORPORATION; and DOES 1 ALTERNATIVE, TO COMPEL through 50, inclusive, ARBITRATION AND PLAINTIFF’S 19 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT 20 21 22 Plaintiff Ataviaous Williams (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel of record, the law 23 firm of Thierman Buck, and Defendant The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) by and through its counsel 24 of record, the law firms of Winston & Strawn LLP and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP 25 (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate to stay discovery in this action as follows: 26 1. After meeting and conferring, the Parties stipulate to stay discovery in this action 27 and vacate all deadlines set in the Order on Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 15) 28 (“Scheduling Order”) pending the Court’s decisions on Hertz’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 1 Or, In the Alternative, To Compel Arbitration (“MSJ”) (Dkt. 20) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 2 to File Second Amended Complaint (“Motion for Leave”) (Dkt. 27) given that the decisions in 3 each will have a significant impact on the case moving forward, including whether this action 4 remains before this Court at all, and the Parties mutually desire to conserve resources as well as 5 their own. 6 2. Requests to stay all discovery may be granted in this District when: (1) a pending 7 motion is potentially dispositive; (2) the potentially dispositive motion can be decided without 8 additional discovery; and (3) the Court has taken a “preliminary peek” at the merits of the 9 potentially dispositive motion and is convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for 10 relief. See Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579, 581 (D. Nev. 2013). 11 3. Plaintiff has set forth three causes of action in her First Amended Class Action 12 Complaint: (i) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Nevada Constitution and NRS 13 608.250; (ii) failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of NRS 608.140 and 14 608.016; and (iii) failure to timely pay all wages due and owing in violation of NRS 608.140 and 15 608.020-050. (See Dkt. 18.) These claims are based upon the allegation that Plaintiff regularly 16 worked more than eight (8) hours in a shift, but did not receive a full 30-minute uninterrupted 17 break on such shifts nor did she receive compensation for such breaks on such shifts. (Id., at ¶¶ 18 16-17.) 19 4. With respect to the first factor, Hertz filed its MSJ on April 18, 2025 (Dkt. 20). 20 The MSJ seeks dismissal of all three causes of action, in full and with prejudice, or, in the 21 alternative to compel arbitration of all three causes of action. (Id. at 2:1-24, 4:17-22, 7:18-13:19.) 22 Thus, the pending MSJ is potentially dispositive of all of Plaintiff’s claims, satisfying the first 23 Kor Media factor. 24 5. With respect to the second factor, Hertz MSJ can be decided without any 25 discovery at all. The MSJ argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred and subject to dismissal 26 because: (i) Nevada’s meal break law does not apply to employees covered by a collective 27 bargaining agreement; (ii) each claim is grounded in a collective bargaining agreement, and 28 therefore each is preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 1 U.S.C. § 185(a); and (iii) Plaintiff failed to exhaust the grievance procedures set forth in the 2 applicable collective bargaining agreement before filing suit. (Id. at 2:6-21, 4:10-16, 7:19-12:12.) 3 The MSJ also argues that Plaintiff’s claims should be compelled to arbitration if they are not 4 dismissed. (Id. at 2:22-24, 4:19-22, 12:13-13:15.) Resolution of these issues require reference to 5 nothing more than federal and state statutes and regulations and the applicable collective 6 bargaining agreement (which was submitted with the MSJ (see Dkt. 21-2)), which requires no 7 discovery whatsoever. Thus, the second Kor Media factor is satisfied. 8 6. With respect to the third factor, a “‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the 9 underlying motion is not intended to prejudge its outcome. Rather, this court’s role is to evaluate 10 the propriety of an order staying or limiting discovery with the goal of accomplishing the 11 objectives of [FRCP] 1. With [FRCP] 1 as its prime directive, this court must decide whether it is 12 more just to speed the parties along in discovery and other proceedings while a dispositive motion 13 is pending, or whether it is more just to delay or limit discovery and other proceedings to 14 accomplish the inexpensive determination of the case.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 15 597, 603 (D. Nev. 2011). 16 7. Hertz’s primary argument in its MSJ is that Plaintiff’s’ claims are barred as a 17 matter of state law. Specifically, the MSJ contends that each of Plaintiff’s claims is premised 18 upon alleged violations of Nevada’s meal break law (NRS 608.019), but the meal break law does 19 not apply to Plaintiff because her employment with Hertz was subject to and covered by a 20 collective bargaining agreement. (Dkt. 20, at 2:3-11, 7:19-9:19.) Hertz contends this is because 21 Nevada’s meal break law provides that it “does not apply to…[e]mployees included within the 22 provisions of a collective bargaining agreement.” NRS 608.019(3)(b). (Id.) As a result, the MSJ 23 argues that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Given the foregoing and Plaintiff’s pending 24 Motion for Leave (which if granted would add a claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting 25 Act), it is clearly more just to stay discovery here to accomplish the preliminary determination of 26 this case before extensive discovery is conducted, satisfying the third Kor Media factor. 27 Tradebay, supra. 28 1 8. The Parties agree that nothing herein shall be construed as Plaintiff’s admission as 2 to the merits of Hertz’s MSJ or as Hertz’s admission as to the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion for 3 Leave. 4 9. In addition, Hertz has agreed to provide certain class-related discovery as part of 5 the Parties’ stipulation. Plaintiff agrees and stipulates that by providing such class-related 6 discovery: (i) Hertz does not waive any arguments regarding class certification and expressly 7 reserves any and all available defenses and arguments; (ii) Hertz does not waive its right to 8 compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims in this action, including through its pending MSJ; and (iii) 9 Plaintiff waives any argument that Hertz has waived its right to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s 10 claims in this action. 11 10. Also, Hertz agrees and stipulates that Plaintiff has not waived any arguments as to 12 the type and propriety of future class-wide discovery in addition to the discovery produced by 13 Hertz as set forth in paragraph 9 above. 14 11. To the extent necessary and/or applicable, the Parties will submit a joint stipulation 15 proposing new dates for all items addressed in the Scheduling Order within thirty (30) days of the 16 issuance of the Court’s decisions on both the MSJ and the Motion for Leave. 17 DATED October 6, 2025. 18 THIERMAN BUCK BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 19 BY: /s/ Leah L. Jones BY: /s/ Travis F. Chance Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Travis F. Chance, Esq. 20 Leah L. Jones, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff Laura R. Petroff, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) ATAVIAOUS WILLIAMS Tristan R. Kirk, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) 22 Attorneys for Defendant 23 THE HERTZ CORPORATION 24 ORDER 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 _______________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 Dated: October 7, 2025 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ataviaous Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ataviaous-williams-on-behalf-of-herself-and-all-other-similarly-situated-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack