Case Name: Charde EVANS, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-15
Citations: 656 F. App'x 882
Docket Number: No. 14-16566
Parties: Charde EVANS, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and ANELLO, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 882–883

Head Matter:
Charde EVANS, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-16566
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2016 San Francisco, California
FILED August 15, 2016
Joshua D. Buck, Thierman Law Firm, Mark Russell Thierman, Attorney, Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP, Reno, NV, R. Craig Clark, Clark Law Group, Janine R. Menhennet, Attorney, David Roger Markham, The Markham Law Firm, James M. Treglio, Clark & Treglio, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Naomi Beer, Esquire, Attorney, Brian Lee Duffy, Esquire, Greenberg Traurig, Denver, CO, Mark E. Ferrario, Attorney, Eric W. Swanis, Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Karin Bohmholdt, Los Angeles, CA, Greenberg Traurig LLP, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and ANELLO, District Judge.
The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Charde Evans appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment regarding her claims for "waiting time" penalties pursuant to Nevada Revised Statutes § 608.040 and 608.050. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review de novo. See Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We reverse and remand.
Wal-Mart employed Evans as an hourly stacker and cashier. At times, Evans worked more than one eight-hour shift within a twenty-four-hour period or more than forty hours in a workweek, entitling her to overtime pay under Nevada law. After Evans filed suit, Wal-Mart settled her claims for unpaid overtime with the Nevada Labor Commissioner. Although the Commissioner's order does not address Evans's claims for waiting time penalties, the district court granted summary judgment on grounds that waiting time penalties are only available when an employer fails to timely pay the "contractually agreed upon wage," not statutory overtime pay.
The Labor Commissioner's order does not reference waiting time penalties, and therefore does not dispose of Evans's waiting time penalty claims. We conclude that overtime pay is a form of wages under Nevada law. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.012 (defining wages as "[tjhe amount which an employer agrees to pay an employee for the time the employee has worked, computed in proportion to time"). Overtime pay is also a form of compensation under § 608.040. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.040 (providing for waiting time penalties for failure to pay wages or compensation). Wal-Mart conceded at oral argument that Evans was employed pursuant to an oral contract of employment, so Evans is also entitled to seek waiting time penalties under § 608.050. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 608.050 (providing for waiting time penalties "in the sum agreed upon in the contract of employment").
Appellant's motion for judicial notice is DENIED.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.