Ninth Circuit upholds ruling against Nevada nail salon for FLSA wage, overtime, and retaliation violations…
Sonderling v. Trinh
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Ninth Circuit upholds ruling against Nevada nail salon for FLSA wage, overtime, and retaliation violations, affirming sanctions, evidence exclusions, and summary judgment against the owners.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a series of district court rulings finding that a Las Vegas nail salon, NAB LLC, and its manager and owner violated federal wage law by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime, keeping inadequate records, and retaliating against workers. The court upheld sanctions imposed on the defendants for deleting surveillance footage and text messages, failing to comply with discovery orders, and submitting unauthenticated evidence. The court agreed that the nail technicians were employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, not independent contractors, because the owners exercised near-complete control over their work.
Who it affects
- This ruling directly affects the owner
- Manager of NAB LLC
- Who face damages
- Injunctive relief
- Attorney's fee awards. More broadly
- It is relevant to nail salon operators
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 21, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 21, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 21, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case began when the United States Secretary of Labor sued NAB LLC, a nail salon, along with its manager Nicole Brown and owner Asia Trinh, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA requires employers to pay minimum wages and overtime, keep proper records, and refrain from retaliating against workers who assert their rights. The central questions on appeal were whether the district court properly sanctioned the defendants, excluded certain evidence, and correctly ruled in favor of the Secretary. On the issue of sanctions, the appeals court found no abuse of discretion. Defendants had deleted electronic records, including surveillance footage and text messages, even after receiving a government cease-and-desist letter and subpoena that put them on notice to preserve that evidence. Because the footage was the only reliable way to establish how many hours employees worked, and because the deleted texts would have helped show the owner's control over workers, the court found the deletions caused real harm to the Secretary's case. As a remedy, the district court barred defendants from contesting the Secretary's reconstruction of workers' hours and required defendants to pay the Secretary's attorney's fees for discovery violations. The Ninth Circuit found these consequences appropriate and not excessive. The court also upheld the exclusion of more than 2,500 pages of documents that defendants submitted without proper authentication, noting that unauthenticated documents cannot be used at the summary judgment stage. Several other documents were struck for not following local court rules, but the district court had given defendants chances to refile, so the court found no unfair prejudice. On the core legal question of whether the nail technicians were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that they were employees. The undisputed record showed that Brown and Trinh controlled the technicians' schedules, required them to stay during shifts without permission to leave, withheld clients from technicians who came in late or took too much time off, and mandated attendance at training. This level of control pointed strongly toward an employment relationship under established FLSA standards. The panel unanimously affirmed all rulings below. The opinion is marked as not for publication and is not precedent under Ninth Circuit rules, meaning it does not set binding legal rules for future cases, though it resolves this dispute fully.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEITH SONDERLING, Acting United No. 25-4257 States Secretary of Labor, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00984-JAD-EJY Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MEMORANDUM * 0F NICOLE BROWN, Defendant - Appellant, and NAB, LLC, ASIA TRINH, Defendants. KEITH SONDERLING, Acting United No. 25-4258 States Secretary of Labor, D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:21-cv-00984-JAD-EJY v. ASIA TRINH, Defendant - Appellant, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. NAB, LLC, NICOLE BROWN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2026 ** 1F Before: BERZON, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Defendants Nicole Brown and Asia Trinh, respectively the manager and owner of defendant nail salon NAB, LCC (“NAB”), appeal pro se from a series of district court orders granting partial summary judgment, damages, and injunctive relief to the United States Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping, and anti- retaliation provisions. Defendants also appeal the district court’s imposition of spoilation and discovery sanctions, its exclusion of exhibits from the summary judgment record, and its striking of documents, among other rulings. We affirm. 1. We review the imposition of discovery sanctions for abuse of discretion “even when the rulings determine the outcome of a motion for summary judgment.” Clare v. Clare, 982 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Domingo ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 25-4257 ex rel. Domingo v. T.K., 289 F.3d 600, 605 (9th Cir. 2002)). “[W]e do not disturb the district court’s choice of sanction unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation modified). We review the factual findings underlying a sanctions order for clear error. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Nat. Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir. 1995). (a) The district court permissibly imposed Rule 37(e) spoilation sanctions for Defendants’ deletion of electronically stored information (“ESI”). The Secretary’s cease-and-desist letter and accompanying subpoena put Defendants on notice of their obligation to preserve records and evidence. See United States v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1001 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendants did not take reasonable steps to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). The district court did not clearly err in determining that the deleted text messages and surveillance footage could not be replaced, nor in finding that the ESI’s deletion prejudiced the Secretary. Video surveillance footage was the only reliable evidence establishing employees’ hours, and Trinh’s text messages would have assisted the Secretary in establishing Trinh’s control and employees’ schedules. The sanctions precluding Defendants from disputing the Secretary’s reconstruction of workers’ hours and 3 25-4257 the authenticity of texts received from Trinh by nonparties were “no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(1). 2F (b) The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2) for Defendants’ failure to obey the court’s September 2022 discovery order. Under that order, Defendants were required to, but did not, produce records of communications with workers, hiring and firing, scheduling, payroll, banking, and technicians’ contact information, among other critical documentation. Much of the information Defendants did produce was not in its native format and thus was unverifiable. Given Defendants’ vexatious conduct throughout discovery, the district court appropriately prohibited Defendants from “relying on any evidence not produced in its native form with associated metadata.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) (authorizing the district court to “prohibit[] the disobedient party from . . . introducing designated matters in evidence”). (c) The district court also acted within its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to the Secretary. “[T]he court must order the disobedient party . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by the failure [to comply with a discovery order], unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) 4 25-4257 (emphasis added). Defendants did not substantially justify their behavior, nor was the award unjust. See Liew v. Breen, 640 F.2d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1981). 2. We review the district court’s exclusion of evidence at summary judgment for abuse of discretion. Orr v. Bank of Am., NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773 (9th Cir. 2002). We will affirm the district court “unless its evidentiary ruling was manifestly erroneous and prejudicial.” Id. (a) Brown challenges the exclusion of more than 2,500 pages of unauthenticated exhibits. “We have repeatedly held that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered in a motion for summary judgment.” Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). (b) Defendants also challenge several orders striking documents not filed in compliance with local rules. In each of those orders, the district court gave Defendants leave to refile, so defendants were not prejudiced. Orr, 285 F.3d at 773.1 3. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2017). “Summary judgment is appropriate only when ‘there is no genuine issue as to any 1 We deny Defendants’ motion to supplement the record with documents stricken by the district court. Dkt. No. 27. 5 25-4257 material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).2 (a) The district court correctly concluded that NAB’s nail technicians were employees within the meaning of the FLSA. See Donovan v. Sureway Cleaners, 656 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth employee classification factors). The undisputed record shows that Brown and Trinh exerted near-complete control over the technicians’ work. They did so by setting operating hours and assigning technicians to shifts, during which technicians could not leave without Brown’s permission; withholding clients from technicians who arrived late or took too much time off; mandating attendance at tra
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.