Civil Procedure Commons^™

In Re Guardianship Of N.M., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (September 24, 2015), Daniel Ormsby

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court heard an appeal from a parent-appellant challenging a district court’s exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction to appoint a temporary, non-parent, guardian and general, non-parent, guardian. Affirmed.

Joanna T. V. Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep 24, 2015), Audra Powell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court considered whether NRCP 4(i)’s 120 day requirement for service of a summons applied to cases filed under NRS § 432B, for protection of children from neglect and abuse. The court held that the 120 day requirement does not apply to cases filed under 432B and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the juvenile court to dismiss an abuse-and-neglect petition on that premise.

Bergenfield V. Bac Home Loans Servicing, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sep. 10, 2015), Chelsea Stacey

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that when a district court dismisses a complaint but gives the plaintiff leave to amend the order it is not a final appealable judgment. In order for it to be a final appealable judgment, a plaintiff must give the district court written notice within 30 days that the plaintiff will not amend the complaint so the district court may enter a final, appealable order.

Barbara Ann Hollier Trust V. Shack, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (August 6, 2015), Patrick Phippen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

On an issue of first impression, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the filing of a post-judgement motion which tolls the time to appeal also tolls NRCP 54(d)(2)(B)’s 20-day deadline to move for attorney fees. The Court further concluded that (a) the $100,000 offset in Hollier’s favor was not extinguished by the Court’s previous order and (b) only Acadian Realty is liable for attorney fees.

Sanders V. Sears-Page, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 50, Scott Lundy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the district court erred in deciding not to strike an empaneled juror whose background implied bias, but who promised he could remain impartial. Moreover, the Court held the district court erred in allowing challenges for cause while the juror was present, and by allowing newly discovered evidence to be entered into evidence on the final day of trial.

Summary Of Biscay V. Mgm Resorts Int’L., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 2, 2015), Patrick Phippen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded dismissal is not proper under NRS 18.130(4) when a non-resident plaintiff files security with the court clerk for the defendant’s costs when the required security is filed any time prior to the action being dismissed.

Summary Of State V. Beaudion, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48 (Jul. 2, 2015), Michael S. Valiente

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

NRS 172.241 affords the target of a grand jury investigation the opportunity to testify before them unless, after holding “a closed hearing on the matter,” the district court determines that adequate cause exists to withhold target notice. NRS 172.241(3) specifies that “[t]he district attorney may apply to the court for a determination that adequate cause exists to withhold notice, if the district attorney.... [d]etermines” that the target poses a flight risk, cannot be located or, as relevant here, “that the notice may endanger the life or property of other persons.” Accordingly, NRS 172.241’s procedure for withholding notice is met if …

Summary Of Lisle V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 39 (June 25, 2015), Adam Wynott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that the petitions filed by the appellant, Kevin James Lisle (Lisle), were procedurally barred. The Court determined that a petitioner cannot present new evidence of mitigating circumstances in order to prove actual innocence of the death penalty. The Court determined that the claims of Lisle did not warrant relief and upheld the district court ruling.

Summary Of Berry V. Feil, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 11, 2015), Patrick Phippen

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The exhaustion requirement applies regardless of what court the complaint is filed in, and that a state court has no discretion to stay a § 1983 action to allow for administrative remedies to be pursued.

Summary Of Nutton V. Sunset Station, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (June 11, 2015), Joseph Meissner

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined the proper relationship between NRCP 15(a) and NRCP 16(b), and explored whether a proposed amendment under NRCP 15(a) can be deemed “futile” because it is unsupported by, or contradicts, factual evidence produced during discovery.

Summary Of Provincial Gov’T Of Marinduque V. Placer Dome, Inc., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 63076 (June 11, 2015), Stacy Newman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the complaint for forum non conveniens. The Court found the lower court properly gave less deference to the respondent’s choice of a Nevada forum and did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case because the case lacked any bona fide connection to this state, adequate alternative fora existed, and the burdens of litigating in Nevada outweighed any convenience to the respondent. Furthermore, the Court held the district court imposed appropriate conditions on dismissal to ensure the existence of an adequate alternative forum for this litigation.

Summary Of Fulbrook V. Allstate Ins. Co., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (Jun. 4, 2015), Walter Fick

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that appellant’s counsel’s “technical difficulties,” with regard to e-mails and case files, was an insufficient basis on which to recall remittitur, because the technical difficulties were unrelated to Nevada’s electronic filing system, which exclusively provides required notifications to counsel.

Summary Of Weddell V. Sharp, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 28 (May 28, 2015), Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that a defendant may raise a defense of claim preclusion against a plaintiff’s complaint even when that defendant was not a party or privy with a defendant in an earlier action brought by the plaintiff. The Court modified the privity requirement established in Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 194 P.3d 709 (2008) to incorporate nonmutual claim preclusion.

Summary Of Catholic Diocese Of Green Bay, Inc. V. John Doe 119, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (May 28, 2015), Adam Wynott

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held a plaintiff must prove sufficient contacts with the jurisdiction in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Without proof of sufficient contacts, Nevada courts do not have personal jurisdiction over a foreign Catholic diocese. The Court reversed the district court’s decision.

Summary Of Jed Prop. V. Coastline Re Holdings Nv Corp., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 11, Katherine Frank

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 107.082(2) does not require a trustee to give notice of a sale pursuant to NRS 107.080 that has been postponed by oral proclamation three times “unless, after the third oral postponement has been given, the sale's date, time, or place is later changed.”

Summary Of Breeden V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 12, Erik Foley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that an appellant who voluntarily dismisses a non-frivolous writ petition, after an answer has been filed, cannot be required to pay the appellee’s attorney’s fees as a condition of the dismissal.

Summary Of Martinorellan V. State, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 6, Gil Kahn

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) a district court's failure to instruct the jury to restart deliberations when an alternate juror replaces an original juror is an error of constitutional dimension; (2) unpreserved errors are reviewed for plain error regardless of whether they are of constitutional dimension; (3) A prejudicial error can result if most of the jury’s deliberation time takes place before the error related to the replacement of an original juror occurs.

Summary Of Fulbright & Jaworski Llp V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 5, Chelsea Lancaster

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) “a general jurisdiction inquiry calls for an appraisal of a defendant’s activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide”; and (2) “an out-of-state law firm that is solicited by a Nevada client to represent the client on an out-of-state matter does not subject itself to [specific] personal jurisdiction in Nevada simply by virtue of agreeing to represent the client.” Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that “[p]urposeful availment requires that the cause of action arise from the consequences in the forum state of the defendant’s activities.”

Summary Of Valdez V. Cox Commc’Ns Las Vegas, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 89, Stephen Davis

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that: (1) under NRCP 21, when claims are severed, two separate actions exist and severed claims may be appealed before resolution of the other, non-severed claims; and (2) a final order for severed claims need not be certified under NRCP 54(b) before appeal.

Summary Of Fdic V. Rhodes, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 8, Aleem A. Dhalla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(A) (the “FDIC extender statute”)[1] preempts any similarly applicable state law, in this case NRS 40.4055(1)[2]; and (2) the Court refused to adopt a rule that a state statute of repose cannot be preempted by federal law.

[1] “Under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA),…the [FDIC] acts as a "conservator or receiver" for failed financial institutions. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(A) (2012). FIRREA extends

the time period for the FDIC, in its capacity as the failed institution's conservator or receiver, to bring a contract claim …

Summary Of Oxbow Constr. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 86, Erik Foley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) previously leased units become a “residence” under NRS 40.630 when their titles are later transferred to a home purchaser; (2) units previously leased prior to transfer of title to a purchaser are not considered “new” under NRS 40.615; and (3) where there is at least one “new residence” in a multiple unit building, relief is available for construction defects in the limited common areas assigned to that building.

Summary Of D.R. Horton V. Betsinger, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 84, Gil Kahn

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that even when a case is remanded only in order for a trier of fact to determine the amount of punitive damages, NRS 42.005(3) requires that same trier of fact to first determine whether such damages are warranted.

Summary Of Renown Reg’L Med. V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 80, Leesa Goodwin

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that before a court may grant summary judgment sua sponte, the defending party must be given notice and an opportunity to defend itself. Thus, summary judgment cannot be granted on claims for which no party sought summary judgment in their pleadings or arguments.

Summary Of Copper Sands Homeowners Ass’N, Inc. V. Flamingo 94, Llc, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 81, Vincent Godinho

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that when a third-party defendant prevails in an action and moves for costs pursuant to NRS 18.020, the district court must determine which party (plaintiff or defendant) is adverse to the third-party defendant and allocate the costs award accordingly.

Summary Of Artiga-Morales V. State, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 77, Janine Lee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In the absence of a rule or statute mandating disclosure of jury background information from the prosecution to the defense, no such obligation exists.[1] If policy considerations dictate that defendants should be allowed to see prosecution-developed jury dossiers, then a court rule should be proposed, considered and adopted as implicitly authorized by NRS 179A.100(7)(j). Such a procedure would allow the court to better assess the “scope of disparity, impact on juror privacy interests, the need to protect work product, practicality, and fundamental fairness

than this case, with its limited record and arguments.”

[1] This is the majority opinion. A …

Summary Of Henson V. Henson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 79, Sydney Gambee

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) survivor benefits must be specifically set forth in a divorce decree notwithstanding NRS 286.590, which does not automatically confer survivor benefits and (2) immediate payment of benefits to a former non-employee spouse must be requested by motion, in accordance with California’s approach in In re Marriage of Cornejo.

[1] 916 P.2d 476 (Cal. 1996).

Summary Of Déjà Vu Showgirls Of Las Vegas, Llc V. Nevada Dep’T Of Taxation, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 72, Hayley Miller

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court (1) determined the sole remedy for a taxpayer aggrieved by a final decision from the Nevada Tax Commission concerning a tax refund request under NRS Chapter 368A (the Nevada Live Entertainment Tax) is to file a petition for judicial review pursuant to NRS 233B.130 and (2) reaffirmed its judicial estoppel doctrine.

Summary Of Las Vegas Sands Corp. V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 69, Michael Bowman

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined whether a former CEO is within a “class of persons” allowed to use the corporation’s privileged documents in litigation against the corporation.

Summary Of Campos-Garcia V. Johnson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, Michael Valiente

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

An appeal is properly taken from an amended judgment only when the amendment “disturb[s] or revise[s] legal rights and obligations which the prior judgment had plainly and properly settled with finality."

Thus, an appeal from a post-judgment award of attorney’s fees and costs must be timely filed, because its incorporation into an amended judgment does not disturb or revise the legal rights and obligations of the parties.

Summary Of Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino V. New Albertson’S, Inc., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 68, Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that NRS 11.207(1), in regards to the two-year statute of limitations, is tolled against a cause of action for attorney malpractice pending the outcome of the underlying lawsuit in which the malpractice allegedly occurred. The Court did not address whether the four-year time limitation may be tolled, because that time limitation had not expired when the malpractice action at issue was filed.