Fetrow-Fix et al v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
Plaintiff: Chari Fetrow-Fix and Thomas Soranno
Defendant: Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2010cv00560
Filed: April 19, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Nevada
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Roger L. Hunt
Presiding Judge: Peggy A. Leen
Nature of Suit: Labor: Fair Standards
Cause of Action: 29 U.S.C. ยง 206 Collect Unpaid Wages
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 9, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 120 ORDER that Magistrate Judge Leens Order 112 is AFFIRMED, Plaintiffs Objections are overruled, and Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration 114 is DENIED. Defendants Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Reply 118 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 5/9/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)
December 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 113 ORDER Denying as Moot 103 Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations for Claims Asserting Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 12/29/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
November 18, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 111 ORDER Granting 83 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Denying 104 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 11/16/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
June 27, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 93 ORDER Granting 88 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 7/8/2011. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 6/27/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
June 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 87 ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions 73 is GRANTED to the extent Mr. Roskelley and Ms. Krincek are admonished for their improper behavior during the deposition of Mr. Byrnes and Ms. Basso respectively, and DENIED in all other respect s; and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 76 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part consistent with the body of this order. Defendant shall have until 6/29/11 in which to serve supplemental responses compelled by this order. Any request for relief no specifically addressed in this order is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/14/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
June 9, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 85 ORDER Denying 48 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Denying 50 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 6/9/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
April 21, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 70 ORDER Denying 65 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
April 12, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 67 ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall have until 4/14/11 in which to file a response to 65 Motion for Protective Order. Defendants shall have until 4/18/11 in which to file a reply. A Motion Hearing set for 4/19/2011 10:00 AM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magi strate Judge Peggy A. Leen. A temporary protective order is entered precluding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition at issue from going forward as currently scheduled on 4/13/11, pending a decision on the merits. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 4/12/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
March 14, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDERED Plaintiff shall have 30 days from decision of the pending Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #48) to file a motion for class certification in the event the district judge grants leave to file a motion for class certification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/14/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
February 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 58 ORDERED that those aspects of Plaintiffs' claims having to do with counting tips and completing corresponding paperwork are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 2/2/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
November 16, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER Granting 17 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint and Granting in Part and Denying in Part 30 Motion for Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 11/16/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Fetrow-Fix et al v. Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Chari Fetrow-Fix
Represented By: Leonard T. Fink
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Thomas Soranno
Represented By: Leonard T. Fink
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?