Law Commons^™

In Re Tr. Of Burgauer, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Dec. 15, 2022), Eva Guevara-Gutierrez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

For the District Court of Nevada to have specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident trustee, they must meet the Calder effects test to show that the defendant purposefully directed his actions towards Nevada. Mere actions towards a plaintiff living in Nevada will not amount to sufficient contacts in Nevada. Margaret must show Steven expressly aimed his actions at Nevada. Margaret failed to bring prima facie evidence of the effects in Nevada. Therefore, Nevada does not have specific personal jurisdiction over Steven.

Moroney V. Young, 138 Nev. Op. 76 (Nov. 23, 2022), Kathryn James

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

When a plaintiff timely moves for an extension of the service period under NRCP 4(e)(3), the district court must consider the Scrimer factors. This includes factors that relate to the plaintiff’s diligence in attempting service and to any circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control that may have resulted in the failure to timely serve the defendant. The Court addressed which factors are to be applied when a district court considers a timely motion to extend the service period for a summons and complaint. The Court had previously articulated the relevant factors to determine whether a plaintiff has shown good cause for …

Torremoro V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 54 (July 07, 2022), Mackenzie Sullivan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada addressed the standard for substituting an expert witness after the close of discovery and considered whether the district court abused its discretion in modifying the scheduling order, reopening discovery, and granting the motion to substitute. Torremoro requested a writ of mandamus requesting this Court to instruct the district court to reverse its order allowing substitution of an expert witness. The Court found that NRCP 16(b)(4)’s “good cause” test, in combination with any relevant local rules, provides the standard governing when a district court may modify a scheduling order. 2 The Court also concluded that the …

Hung Vs. Berhad, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (June 30, 2022), Candace Mays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court erred in dismissing the appellants’ complaint on procedural grounds without granting leave to amend so that they could remedy any deficiencies in their pleadings thus far. The Court held that neither the appellants’ original complaint, first amended complaint, nor proposed second amended complaint, contained facts sufficient to show leave to amend would not be futile. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint.

Cox V. Mgm Grand Hotel, Lcc., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (Apr. 14, 2022), Anne-Greyson Long

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

This case addressed when the district court can and should grant a remand for a new trial when a party claimed that evidentiary and instructional errors prejudiced their case. The particular issue in this case was the admittance of six surveillance videos that contradicted in-court presentation.

The Elastics Of Snap Removal: An Empirical Case Study Of Textualism, Thomas O. Main, Jeffrey W. Stempel, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

This article reports the findings of an empirical study of textualism as applied by federal judges interpreting the statute that permits removal of diversity cases from state to federal court. The “snap removal” provision in the statute is particularly interesting because its application forces judges into one of two interpretive camps—which are fairly extreme versions of textualism and purposivism, respectively. We studied characteristics of cases and judges to find predictors of textualist outcomes. In this article we offer a narrative discussion of key variables and we detail the results of our logistic regression analysis. The most salient predictive variable was …

Reynolds V. Tufenkjian, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Apr. 9, 2020), Brittni Tanenbaum

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered whether a party who purchased a judgment debtor’s rights of action could motion the Court to substitute themselves in as the real party in interest and dismiss the appeal. The Court held that only “things in action” that are otherwise assignable may be subject to execution to satisfy a judgment. The Court concluded that tort claims for personal injury—including fraud/intentional misrepresentation and elder exploitation—are generally not assignable. The Court further concluded that tort claims for injury to property and contract-based claims, unless the claims are personal in nature, are generally assignable. Therefore, the Court granted the respondents’ …

Jaramillo V. Ramos, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 17 (Apr. 2, 2020), Jose Tafoya

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found a plaintiff is not required to provide expert testimony to survive a defendant’s summary judgment motion when the plaintiff is relying on the res ipsa loquitur statute’s prima facie case of negligence. Rather, plaintiff must only establish facts that entitle it to a rebuttable presumption of negligence under Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute. Whether a defendant can rebut the presumption through their own expert testimony or evidence is a question of fact for the jury.

Berberich V. Bank Of America, 136 Nev. Ad. Op (Mar. 26, 2020), Amelia Mallette

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a quiet title action from a foreclosure sale was barred by NRS 11.080 because Berberich was in possession of the property for five years before commencing the action. The Court held that the limitations period outlined in NRS 11.080 will not run against an owner who is in undisputed possession of the land.

Snap Removal: Concept; Cause; Cacophony; And Cure, Jeffrey W. Stempel, Thomas O. Main, David Mcclure

Scholarly Works

So-called “snap removal” – removal of a case from state to federal court prior to service on a forum state defendant – has divided federal trial courts for 20 years. Recently, panels of the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits have sided with those supporting the tactic even though it conflicts with the general prohibition on removal when the case includes a forum state defendant, a situation historically viewed as eliminating the need to protect the outsider defendant from possible state court hostility.

Consistent with the public policy underlying diversity jurisdiction – availability of a federal forum to protect against defending …

Toll V. Dist. Ct. (Gilman), 135 Nev., Advanced Opinion 58 (December 5, 2019), Gabrielle Boliou

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

A blogger claimed that his sources are protected under NRS 49.275. The court held that digital media is protected, but did not address whether a blogger is protected. The district court did not err in allowing discovery to determine whether the blogger acted with actual malice.

In Re Application Of Finley, Nevada Ct. App., No. 76715-Coa (July 25, 2019), Ben Coonan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court found that the lower court had erroneously applied the incorrect statute in determining the requisite waiting period to file an application to seal records, and reversed and remanded with instructions for the lower court to apply the updated statute. The court found Finley’s argument – that a later court is prohibited from considering that conviction in an application to seal further records once record of a conviction has been sealed – without merit because statutory language expressly permits courts to consider sealed records in future applications.

Marcus A. Reif V. Aries Consultants, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Oct. 10, 2019), Joseph Adamiak

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that, under NRS 11.258(1), a complaint is only void if it is served without a concurrent filing of attorney affidavit and export report.

State, Bd. Of Architecture V. Dist. Ct., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, Melissa Yeghiazarian

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court had two holdings in this case. First, a final decision for purposes of judicial review must contain a detailed finding of facts and conclusions of law by an administrative agency. Second, when a petition for judicial review is filed prematurely, it does not vest jurisdiction in the district court.

Kim V. Dickinson Wright, Pllc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 20, 442 P.3d 1070 (Jun. 13, 2019), Elizabeth Davenport

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court reversed the district court’s order granting the motion to dismiss and determined 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), the statute of limitations for a state-law claim filed in federal court, stops running only while the claim is pending in federal court and for 30 days after the state-law claim’s dismissal. Further, Nevada’s litigation malpractice rule, which does not apply to non-adversarial or transactional representation, or before the attorney files a complaint, tolls a litigation malpractice claim’s statute of limitations until the underlying litigation is resolved and damages are certain, preserving the statute of limitations under NRS 11.207(1) which requires a …

State Dep’T Of Corr. V. Ludwick, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 12 (May 2, 2019), Tayler Bingham

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a hearing officer must also give deference to the agency’s determination that a crime is so serious that termination serves the public good, even when the agency has no published regulation dictating that outcome, and (2) an administrative hearing officer committed a clear error of law in relying, in any way, upon an invalid regulation to review an agency’s determination to terminate for a first-time disciplinary action.

Rose, Llc., V. Treasure Island, Llc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Jun. 6, 2019), Ben Coonan

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that (1) strict compliance with contract notice requirements is unnecessary if the defaulting party receives actual notice and no prejudice resulted from failure to comply strictly with the contract terms; and (2) a party is not necessary under NRCP 19 unless the other parties to the litigation cannot obtain complete relief in that party’s absence.

Boesiger V. Desert Appraisals, Llc, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 25 (July 3, 2019), Jeff Garrett

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that Appellants provided insufficient evidence to show that Respondents had a duty to Appellant or breached their duty to Appellant. The Appellants failed to provide the required expert testimony necessary for a case concerning the professional conduct of a profession whose standards and procedures are not known to the public. Additionally, because the contract between the Appellants and the Respondents did not expressly name the Appellants as third-party beneficiaries, the Appellants do not have standing to request the contract be enforced.

Tricarichi V. Coöperatieve Rabobank, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 73175 (May 2, 2019), John Bays

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Walden v. Fiore did not overrule Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, meaning that Nevada, under its long-arm statute, recognizes conspiracy-based theory personal jurisdiction and utilizes the conspiracy jurisdiction test as laid out in Gibbs v. Prime Lending and (2) Tricarichi failed to establish personal jurisdiction under either specific or conspiracy theory personal jurisdiction due to an inability to provide sufficient evidence connecting the respondents actions to Nevada.

Saticoy Bay Llc V. Nev. Ass’N Servs., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 23 (Jul. 3, 2019), Katrina Fadda

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that (1) under Nevada's HOA foreclosure redemption statute NRS 116.31166(3) a homeowner may use proceeds from the foreclosure sale to go towards redemption of the property; and (2) that sufficient compliance with the statute is enough to satisfy the statute's requirements.

Spar Bus. Serv.'S, Inc. Vs. Olson, 135 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 40 (2019), Misha Ray

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

As a matter of first impression, the Court found that the 45-day service requirement for review of administrative decisions is not a jurisdictional requirement because the statute allows for extension based on good cause. However, in the present case, appellant did not show good cause for late service. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition.

Demaranville V. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.’S, Inc., 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 35 (Sept. 5, 2019), Anya Lester

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the last injurious exposure rule determines the liability for occupational disease which is conclusively presumed to have resulted from past employment. Additionally, the Court held that death benefits are based on the employee’s wages earned while working for the employer to which the occupational disease is causally connected.

Our Passive-Aggressive Model Of Civil Adjudication, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

In this essay, Professor Main offers one original observation and poses two new questions about the vanishing civil trial.

Uniformity Of State & Federal Procedure, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Mediation: An Unlikely Villain, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

Professor Main argues that the modem ADR movement (and mediation in particular), rather than some (other) ideology, beget the pleading and summary judgment standards that exemplify contemporary practice and procedure in the fourth era in the history of American civil procedure. The other key reforms of the fourth era-the vanishing trial, the embrace of ADR, judicial case management and the pursuit of settlement by any means necessary-are more obviously tied to the modem ADR movement. Blame for all of the key fourth era reforms is thus traceable to the modern ADR movement. This, in turn, matters because it is generally …

Gonor V. Dale, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 109 (Dec. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Esteban Hernandez

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the 90-day period in which a deceased party’s successor or representative must seek to substitute for the deceased plaintiff begins when a party files a suggestion of death on the record, not on the actual date of death. But, because appellants failed to identify the proper party to maintain the survival action within 90 days, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the suit with prejudice.

In Re: Estate Of Sarge 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 105 (Dec. 27, 2018), Kaila Patrick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court overruled the consolidation rule established in Malin v. Farmers Insurance Exchange and held that a final order resolving a consolidated case is immediately appealable as a final judgment, even if the other constituent cases or other cases are still pending. Accordingly, the Court held that the appeal at issue may proceed because the challenged order finally resolved one of multiple consolidated cases.

Valley Health Sys. V. Estate Of Jane Doe, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (Sept. 27, 2018) (En Banc), Amanda Stafford

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court acted within its discretion in sanctioning the party for discovery violations. Further, it determined that the district court’s citation to the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct causes reputational harm that amounts to a sanction and that the district court correctly found that the attorneys did in fact violate Nevada Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1).

N. Nev. Homes V. Gl Constr., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 60 (Aug. 2, 2018), Jeff Chronister

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court found that the district court’s awarding of attorneys fees and costs was appropriate following bifurcated trials in which the parties settled as to damages on Northern Nevada Homes’ claims in an amount that exceeds GL Construction’s damages on its counterclaim because: 1) no statute or court rule requires the trial court to offset a damages judgment on one party’s counterclaim by the amount recovered by another party in settling its claim to determine which side is the prevailing party, and 2) the most reasonable interpretation of NRS 18.010(2)(a) and 18.020(3) precludes the use of settlement recovery for this …

Labarbera V. Wynn Las Vegas, Llc, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 51 (Jul. 19, 2018), Casey Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that the district court erred when it precluded the appellant from testifying by video conference from Italy and when it cited the incorrect legal standard to exclude evidence of appellant’s intoxication.