A Cab v. Murray: Nevada Supreme Court Confirms District Courts’ Authority to Award Appellate Attorney Fees under the Minimum Wage Amendment

Introduction

In A Cab Series, LLC f/k/a A Cab, LLC v. Murray, No. 85850 (Aug. 7, 2025), the Supreme Court of Nevada addressed a post-judgment dispute over attorney-fee awards arising from a long-running minimum-wage class action brought by taxi drivers against their employer, A Cab. The decision, issued after an earlier appellate remand (Murray I, 2021), clarifies two pivotal issues:

Whether the plaintiffs (Murray and Reno) remained “prevailing parties” entitled to fees following partial reversal and remand in Murray I.
Whether a Nevada district court has authority—under the state’s Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA)—to award appellate attorney fees, notwithstanding the silence of Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) 38 on that point.

The Court affirmed the district court’s recalculated fee award of $541,271, thereby establishing a significant precedent: district courts may grant prevailing employees their reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal in MWA enforcement actions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously (with two justices disqualified) affirmed the district court’s post-remand order, holding that:

Prevailing-party status persisted. Murray I resolved the merits and endorsed plaintiffs’ entitlement to fees; the remand was limited to recalculating fees to reflect the correct statute-of-limitations period. Issues regarding class decertification, the competing Dubric settlement, or liability were outside the mandate and could not be revisited.
Appellate fees are recoverable under the MWA. The Amendment’s broad language—“any employee who prevails in any action” shall recover reasonable fees—encompasses fees incurred at all procedural stages, including appeals. NRAP 38 does not preempt or restrict this substantive statutory entitlement.
No abuse of discretion in denying Rule 11 sanctions. The district court reasonably found that plaintiffs’ filings during a stay were not frivolous, and thus declined to reduce fees as a sanction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s reasoning leaned on a constellation of Nevada authority:

Budget Financial Corp. v. Systems Investment Corp., 89 Nev. 306 (1973) – established the mandate rule: matters settled on appeal cannot be re-litigated on remand.
State Engineer v. Eureka County, 133 Nev. 557 (2017) – reiterated that district courts must strictly comply with appellate remand instructions.
Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424 (2000) – defined “final judgment” as one leaving nothing for future consideration except post-judgment issues; used to reject A Cab’s argument that fees were premature.
Thomas v. City of North Las Vegas, 122 Nev. 82 (2006) – set abuse-of-discretion standard for fee awards; cited for appellate review framework.
Capriati Construction Corp., Inc. v. Yahyavi, 137 Nev. 675 (2021) – affirmed deferential review of sanction decisions.
Dictionary and interpretative canons from Legislature v. Settelmeyer, 137 Nev. 231 (2021) to read “any” and “action” broadly.

Collectively, these cases furnished the doctrinal scaffolding supporting the mandate rule, prevailing-party analysis, statutory interpretation, and discretionary review of sanctions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three logical steps:

Mandate Rule & Law of the Case. Because Murray I explicitly upheld liability and entitlement to fees (subject only to recalculation), the district court was barred from revisiting those issues. A Cab’s attempts to inject the Dubric settlement were procedurally foreclosed.
Statutory Entitlement to Appellate Fees. The Nevada Constitution, art. 15 § 16(7), guarantees that a prevailing employee “shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” The Court emphasized:

The text contains no qualifier restricting fees to trial-level work.
NRAP 38’s silence on district-court authority does not negate a separate substantive right conferred by the Constitution.
Public-policy alignment: Fee shifting ensures employees can vindicate wage rights without erosion through protracted appellate litigation.

Sanctions & Discretion. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Court deferred to the trial judge’s factual assessment that plaintiffs’ stay-period motions were not sanctionable under NRCP 11.

Impact of the Decision

The decision’s ramifications extend beyond the immediate parties:

Fee-Shifting Landscape. By recognizing appellate fees under the MWA, the Court strengthens fee-shifting statutes/constitutional provisions as full-spectrum remedies, deterring dilatory or strategic appeals by employers.
Class-Action Strategy. The ruling reinforces the finality of class-action judgments and underscores that subsequent settlements in parallel actions cannot retroactively disturb certified classes once a mandate has issued.
Mandate Rule Clarity. Practitioners must raise all arguments in the first appeal; failure to do so will bar later invocation on remand.
Broader Wage-and-Hour Enforcement. Employees filing under the MWA can confidently pursue appellate review without fear that their fee recovery will be truncated at the trial level.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA): Nevada’s constitutional provision guaranteeing a higher-than-federal minimum wage and empowering employees to sue for unpaid wages, plus mandatory fee shifting to successful employees.
Prevailing Party: The litigant who achieves a favorable judgment on the merits. Even partial success can suffice if the judgment materially alters the legal relationship between the parties.
Mandate Rule/Law of the Case: Once the appellate court decides an issue and issues its mandate, lower courts and the parties cannot relitigate that issue in the same case.
Appellate Attorney Fees: Legal fees incurred during an appeal. Absent statutory or contractual authority, each side typically bears its own. The MWA constitutes such authority.
NRAP 38: Nevada rule allowing the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals to award fees for frivolous appeals; it does not purport to be an exclusive source for fee awards.
Rule 11 Sanctions: Penalties for filings made for improper purpose (harassment, delay) or lacking legal/factual basis. Imposed sparingly and reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Conclusion

A Cab v. Murray cements two important propositions in Nevada jurisprudence:

The mandate rule is iron-clad: parties cannot use post-remand maneuvering to revisit issues settled on appeal.
The Nevada Minimum Wage Amendment authorizes recovery of all reasonable attorney fees—including those generated during appeals—by prevailing employees, expanding the financial protections embedded in wage-and-hour litigation.

By endorsing appellate fee recovery and refusing to disturb the fee award based on collateral settlements or unsubstantiated sanction requests, the Court fortified employees’ ability to vindicate statutory wage rights throughout the entire litigation lifecycle. The decision is poised to influence fee petitions, settlement calculus, and appellate strategies in wage-and-hour and other fee-shifting contexts across Nevada.