Water Street Gaming LLC d/b/a Rainbow Club v. Culinary Workers Union Local 226, as the real party in interest for Kelly Reyes

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00297
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 WATER STREET GAMING LLC d/b/a Case No.2:24-CV-297 JCM (BNW) Rainbow Club, 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. 10 CULINARY WORKERS UNION LOCAL 226, 11 as the real party in interest for KELLY REYES,

12 Defendant(s).

13 14 Presently before the court is plaintiff Water Street Gaming LLC, dba Rainbow Club 15 (“Rainbow Club”)’s motion for a status conference. (ECF No. 23). Defendant Culinary Workers 16 Union Local 226, appearing as the real party interest for Kelly Reyes, filed a response (ECF No. 17 24), to which plaintiff replied (ECF No. 25). 18 Plaintiff terminated its employee Kelly Reyes after learning that she had allegedly been 19 soliciting customers and accepting gifts in violation of plaintiff’s policies and procedures. 20 Culinary Workers Union Local 226 sent Rainbow Club a grievance letter, stating that the union 21 was grieving Ms. Reyes termination pursuant to section 6.01(a) of the CBA. 22 The parties arbitrated the matter in front of arbitrator David Weinberg, who found that 23 “there was not just cause for the termination of Kelly Reyes” and determined that she must be 24 “returned to work with full seniority and made whole, subject to an offset for outside earnings 25 during this time period.” (See ECF No. 2-7 at 21). The arbitrator awarded backpay but left the 26 determination of the amount to the parties. However, if the parties could not agree on an amount, 27 the arbitrator noted that he would resume his jurisdiction and determine it at that time. 28 1 On February 13, 2024, plaintiff filed the instant action, seeking to vacate or modify the 2 arbitral award. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff claims that the arbitrator lacked authority to issue the 3 backpay award because the defendant failed to present evidence of Ms. Reyes’ mitigation efforts 4 at the arbitration. (ECF No. at 23 at 2). Plaintiff presently requests the court to order the parties 5 to attend a status conference “to determine the status of [plaintiff]’s Petition.” (Id. at 3). 6 The court will not conduct pretrial conferences unless otherwise ordered. Written requests 7 intended to expedite the disposition of a case are appropriate, “particularly when the case is 8 complex or in which there has been delay.” LR 16-2. At the same time, courts have the power to 9 manage their own dockets, so granting or denying such a request is solely within the discretion of 10 the court. See United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (“There is a well- 11 established principle that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets.”). Plaintiff 12 bases its request for a status conference on the fact that this matter has been fully briefed since 13 June 2024. (ECF No. 25 at 2). Plaintiff presents no new or complex issues for the court to consider 14 at such a conference. (Id.) The court is not inclined to grant plaintiff’s request for a status 15 conference, as it appears that the request is intended as a check in with the court’s progress and 16 potentially to procure a mini trial on the legal disputes. (Id.) (Rainbow Club “challenges the basis 17 of the Arbitrators award” and “seeks a status” on the determination of the petition). This is 18 procedurally improper. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for a 21 status conference (ECF No. 23) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 22 DATED October 1, 2025. 23 _______________________________________ 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28