Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Catherine Doan and Craig Doan divorced in 2003. The divorce decree did not include Craig’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) retirement benefit despite the fact that the retirement benefit was disclosed and discussed during the divorce proceedings. In 2009, Catherine filed a motion for division of an omitted asset after her attorney discovered that she was not receiving Craig’s FAA retirement benefits. The district court modified the final decree of divorce, concluding that Craig’s retirement benefits were omitted from the divorce decree because of a mutual mistake. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an ex-spouse who does not file a motion for relief from a divorce decree within the six month period under Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not entitled to partition absent exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief; and (2) under the facts of this case, Catherine was not entitled to equitable relief because the retirement benefit was adjudicated in the divorce proceedings. View "Doan v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

Petitioners were two German limited liability corporations who were sued by a homeowners association for alleged construction defects in plumbing parts. Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they had no direct connection to Nevada, did not manufacture or distribute the allegedly faulty plumbing parts, and had no responsibility or control over their American subsidiaries such that the subsidiaries’ contacts with Nevada could be imputed to Petitioners. The district court asserted jurisdiction over Petitioners, determining that the companies’ American subsidiaries acted as Petitioners’ agents and concluding that the subsidiaries’ contacts with Nevada could be imputed to Petitioners. Petitioners filed a petition for writ of prohibition challenging the validity of the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over them. The district court granted the petition, holding that no agency relationship was shown in this case, and accordingly, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction in imputing the subsidiaries’ contacts to Petitioners. View "Viega GmbH v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In this dispute over a real estate transaction, the real party in interest (KB Home) took the deposition of one of Defendants’ principals. During the deposition, the principal testified that he had refreshed his recollection and prepared for the deposition by reviewing two memoranda prepared by his attorneys and his own handwritten notes. When KB Home requested that the principal divulge the contents of the memoranda and notes, however, the principal refused on the grounds that they were privileged. KB Home filed a motion to compel production of the documents. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 50.125 mandates disclosure of any documents used before a deposition to refresh one’s recollection. Defendants sought writ relief from the Supreme Court. The Court denied the petition, holding (1) reviewing a document for the purpose of refreshing one’s memory prior to giving testimony serves as a waiver to the attorney-client privilege under section 50.125; and (2) section 50.125 applies to depositions as well as to in-court hearings. View "Las Vegas Dev. Assocs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint for a deficiency judgment against Defendants. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The motion was eventually denied after delays due to the death of the district court judge. While the motion remained pending, Defendants did not file an answer to the complaint. Nearly 300 days after Defendants filed the motion to dismiss, Defendants moved to dismiss the case due to Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with Nev. R. Civ. P. 16.1(e), which allows a district court to dismiss a case without prejudice if the plaintiff fails to meet the deadlines for holding an early case conference and filing the case conference report. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the death of the district judge and resulting delays warranted extending the Rule 16.1 deadlines. The Supreme Court denied Defendant’s petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that compelling and extraordinary circumstances justified an extension of time to complete the conference and report. View "Dornbach v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Appellant, on behalf of her daughter, Sarah, filed a wrongful death action under Nev. REv. Stat. 41.085(4) against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. after Sarah’s father was fatally assaulted in a Wal-Mart parking lot. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s action against Wal-Mart, concluding that claim preclusion barred the case because the decedent’s estate, along with three of the decedent’s heirs, had already filed a wrongful death lawsuit under 41.085(5) against Wal-Mart and lost. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal but on issue preclusion grounds, holding that Appellant was barred from relitigating the issue of Wal-Mart’s negligence because it had already been established, in the case brought by the estate on her behalf, that Wal-Mart was not negligent and thus, not liable. View "Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a civil complaint against The Power Company, Inc. (“TPCI”) and TPCI’s president, Rick Rizzolo. Less than five years after Plaintiffs filed their action, they entered into a settlement agreement with TPCI and Rizzolo providing that Plaintiffs would receive $9 million upon the sale of Crazy Horse Too, which TPCI owned. More than five years after Plaintiffs filed their complaint, TPCI and Rizzolo filed two motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action under Nev. R. Civ. P. 41(e) for want of prosecution. The district court denied the motions. After the Crazy Horse Too sold at a foreclosure sale, Plaintiffs filed a third motion to reduce the settlement agreement to judgment. The district court granted the motion. TPCI and Rizzolo appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Rule 41(e)’s provision requiring dismissal for want of prosecution does not apply to an action in which the parties enter into a binding settlement agreement before Rule 41(e)’s five-year deadline has expires, and therefore, the district court properly denied TPCI and Rizzolo’s motions to dismiss for want of prosecution; and (2) the district court did not err in reducing the parties’ settlement agreement to judgment. View "The Power Co., Inc. v. Henry" on Justia Law