Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A restaurant operated by PFPCO.’s Noble Pie Parlor leased space in the El Cortez Hotel in Reno, Nevada, which was owned by El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC. After initially peaceful relations, the parties’ relationship deteriorated due to disputes over property maintenance and incidents such as a gas leak and a stolen camera. Tensions escalated when El Cortez locked Noble Pie out, resulting in litigation that ended largely in Noble Pie’s favor, with the judgment affirmed on appeal. Later, Noble Pie permanently closed its restaurant, prompting El Cortez to allege breach of the lease’s agreed-use provision and file a new complaint. Noble Pie moved to dismiss; the district court granted the motion but allowed El Cortez to amend its complaint. After further procedural exchanges, El Cortez filed an amended complaint, and Noble Pie again moved to dismiss.The Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, presided by Judge Egan K. Walker, reviewed El Cortez’s late opposition to the motion to dismiss and its request for an extension of time. El Cortez’s request, based on “professional courtesy,” was submitted just before the deadline. The district court denied the extension, finding no good cause for the delay and noting El Cortez’s pattern of tardiness in filings. The court treated El Cortez’s failure to timely oppose the motion as an admission under DCR 13(3), granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, denied leave to further amend, and awarded attorney fees to Noble Pie as the prevailing party under the lease.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the extension, granting the motion to dismiss, refusing leave to amend, and awarding attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or err in any of these rulings and affirmed the judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules in litigation. View "El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC v. PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor" on Justia Law

Lewis & Clark LTC Risk Retention Group, Inc. was placed into receivership and liquidation by the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance after financial distress. The Commissioner, acting as receiver, sued the company’s directors, alleging gross negligence and breaches of fiduciary duty relating to their management of the insurer. The allegations included knowingly relying on an unlicensed reinsurance broker, approving projects outside guidelines, operating the company in a hazardous condition, and violating Nevada statutes and regulations.After the directors moved for judgment on the pleadings, the Eighth Judicial District Court stayed proceedings while the directors petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court of Nevada, in Chur v. Eighth Judicial District Court, held that directors and officers can only be held personally liable for intentional misconduct, fraud, or knowing violations of the law, not gross negligence. The district court then denied the Commissioner leave to amend the complaint to meet this clarified standard, finding the amendment untimely, prejudicial, and futile, and entered judgment for the directors. The directors also moved for attorney fees and costs, which the district court denied, citing statutory immunity for the Commissioner.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada found that Chur I represented a significant change in law and that, under Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and in the interest of justice, leave to amend should have been granted. The district court abused its discretion by denying the amendment, as the proposed changes were not made in bad faith, were not unduly prejudicial, and were not futile. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in favor of the directors, vacated the denial of attorney fees, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "Commissioner of Insurance v. Chur" on Justia Law

The case involves a Nevada-domiciled trust, managed by a Nevada family trust company, whose trustee petitioned the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada to seal confidential information and close all court proceedings under NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256. The district court sealed nearly all documents and concealed the existence of the case, citing concerns over revealing personal, financial, and business information, and later provided limited case information after media inquiries. Several media organizations, having reported on the matter—especially due to its connection to Rupert Murdoch and control over major media holdings—sought intervention to access court records and proceedings, arguing that the First Amendment presumption of public access applied.The probate commissioner recommended allowing media intervention but denying access, and the district court entered an order adopting this recommendation. The court interpreted the statutes as granting automatic and comprehensive confidentiality, finding that privacy and security concerns—heightened by the parties’ public profiles—constituted a compelling interest for sealing and closure. The district court also concluded it lacked discretion to consider redaction as an alternative and held that the statutes’ confidentiality provisions justified the broad closure, even after the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court recognized a First Amendment presumption of access in civil and family court proceedings.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the district court’s decision, holding that NRS 164.041 and NRS 669A.256 permit only provisional sealing and require judicial discretion. The statutes do not automatically justify blanket sealing or closure, nor do they displace the common law or constitutional presumption of openness. The court found that the district court failed to make specific, non-speculative factual findings to justify the sealing and closure and did not adequately consider less restrictive alternatives. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its sealing order and conduct the required analysis for each document and hearing transcript. View "New York Times Co. v. District Court" on Justia Law

An employer engaged in the cybersecurity industry hired an employee for a marketing and sales position after recruiting him away from a competitor. The parties signed a written employment agreement that described a specific role and compensation structure. The employee alleged that the promised position did not actually exist and that he was instead given an entry-level sales role. Although the employee changed employers, he remained at his existing residence in Las Vegas throughout his employment.The employee sued the employer, claiming a violation of Nevada's employment-luring statute, NRS 613.010, which prohibits employers from inducing workers to change locations under false pretenses regarding employment terms. The employer moved for summary judgment in the Eighth Judicial District Court, arguing that the statute did not apply because the employee had not physically relocated his residence. The employee countered that the statute applies when an employee changes their place of employment, not necessarily their residence. The district court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the statute’s civil cause of action provision supports the employee’s interpretation. The court also denied the employer’s later motion to strike the employee’s jury demand, ruling the employer had waived the argument by waiting too long to raise it.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case and held that NRS 613.010 authorizes a civil cause of action when an employee changes their place of employment in response to false or deceptive representations by an employer, even if the employee does not change their place of residence. The court further found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to strike the jury demand. Accordingly, the Supreme Court denied the employer’s petition for a writ of mandamus. View "Field Effect Security, Inc. v. District Court" on Justia Law

AZG Limited Partnership obtained a judgment against a client of Dickinson Wright PLLC, a law firm. To enforce the judgment, AZG served Dickinson Wright with garnishment interrogatories under Nevada law, specifically asking whether the firm had any “choses in action” (rights to bring legal claims) belonging to its client under its control. Dickinson Wright answered “no.” AZG challenged this response, arguing that the attorney-client relationship itself gave the law firm control over the client’s chose in action, and that the firm likely held unearned client funds that could be garnished. Dickinson Wright requested an in camera review of certain documents, citing attorney-client privilege, to support its response. The district court reviewed the documents and found that a third party, not the client, paid the legal bills, and that Dickinson Wright did not hold any retainer or unearned funds.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County denied AZG’s motion to traverse Dickinson Wright’s interrogatory responses, finding that the law firm did not possess or control the client’s chose in action as contemplated by the relevant statute. The court also ordered Dickinson Wright to disclose the identity of the third-party financer but did not require disclosure of the in camera documents, suggesting that discovery procedures would be the proper avenue for further requests.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s order. The court held that attorneys and law firms do not possess or control a client’s chose in action for purposes of NRS 31.290(1) merely by representing the client. The type of control attorneys exercise in litigation is distinct from the possessory or property-based control required by the statute for garnishment. Therefore, Dickinson Wright’s negative response to the interrogatory was proper, and the district court’s denial of AZG’s motion to traverse was correct. View "AZG Limited Partnership v. Dickinson Wright PLLC" on Justia Law

This case arose from a complex series of shareholder derivative actions involving a mineral rights holding company. The litigation began in March 2014, alleging self-dealing by the company’s corporate counsel and majority shareholder. Over the years, multiple complaints and counterclaims were filed, and the cases were consolidated. The original defendant, Paul, was dismissed from the case in 2016 but was later named as a counterdefendant in an amended counterclaim filed in 2020, after control of the company shifted. During Paul’s absence from the litigation, the remaining parties agreed to waive the five-year rule for bringing a case to trial under NRCP 41(e)(2)(B).The Second Judicial District Court, after considering Paul’s 2024 motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution under NRCP 41(e)(2)(B), denied the motion. The district court reasoned that the 2020 amended counterclaim constituted a new action, thereby restarting the five-year period, and that the parties’ earlier waiver of the five-year rule applied to Paul as well.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case on a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the five-year period for bringing an action to trial under NRCP 41(e)(2)(B) begins with the filing of the initial complaint, regardless of subsequent procedural developments. The court further clarified that a waiver of the five-year rule by some parties does not bind parties who did not join in the waiver. The court also determined that the amended counterclaim did not constitute a new action for purposes of the rule. As a result, the Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition and directed the district court to dismiss the action against Paul, with the district court to determine whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice. View "Paul v. District Court" on Justia Law

Rose, while 24 weeks pregnant with M.W., was traveling by Greyhound bus from Washington State to Las Vegas. During the journey, she boarded a bus in Redding, California, where another passenger, Asaandi Coleman, opened fire, injuring Rose. Rose was treated in California and later transferred to Las Vegas, where she suffered complications leading to an emergency C-section for M.W. M.W. has required constant medical care since birth. M.W.'s father filed a negligence lawsuit against Greyhound, alleging negligence and negligent hiring, training, retaining, supervising, and equipping.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Greyhound, applying the Calder effects test, which is used for intentional torts. The court found that Greyhound did not purposefully direct its conduct toward Nevada, the cause of action did not arise from Greyhound's contacts with Nevada, and exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in applying the Calder effects test, as it only applies to intentional torts, and the claims against Greyhound were based on negligence. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal, determining that even under the correct test for specific personal jurisdiction, the district court lacked jurisdiction. Greyhound's contacts with Nevada were not sufficiently related to the negligence claims, which arose from events in California. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's order dismissing the action. View "WHITLEY VS. GREYHOUND LINES, INC." on Justia Law

Michael Kosor, Jr., a homeowner in Southern Highlands, a Las Vegas residential common-interest community, sued the Southern Highlands Community Association (HOA) and its developer, Southern Highlands Development Corporation (SHDC), for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the homeowners' right to elect the HOA's board of directors. Kosor claimed that the community had surpassed the 75% home-sale threshold, ending the declarant control period, yet SHDC continued to appoint three of the five board members, violating homeowners' voting rights. The HOA and SHDC disputed Kosor's interpretation and calculations.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County denied Kosor's motion for a temporary restraining order, largely denied the HOA's and SHDC's motion to dismiss, and denied Kosor's motion for summary judgment. Kosor then sought to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice, but the court dismissed it with prejudice and awarded fees and costs to the HOA and SHDC. Kosor appealed but later withdrew his appeal, acknowledging that he could not reinstate it or raise the same issues again. Subsequently, the HOA and SHDC sought additional fees and costs incurred on appeal, prompting Kosor to file a motion under NRCP 60(b)(4), arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to noncompliance with NRS 38.310's pre-suit ADR requirement.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that NRS 38.310, which mandates pre-suit mediation or arbitration for certain HOA-related claims, is a procedural claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. The court determined that the district court had jurisdiction despite the parties' noncompliance with NRS 38.310 and properly denied Kosor's motion to vacate its judgment and fee-award orders as jurisdictionally void. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's decision. View "KOSOR VS. S. HIGHLANDS CMTY. ASS'N" on Justia Law

UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company and its affiliates (collectively, United) were sued by Fremont Emergency Services and other emergency medical providers (collectively, TeamHealth) for underpaying claims for emergency medical services provided to United’s members. TeamHealth alleged that United failed to adequately reimburse them for services rendered under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) after their contract with United expired, leaving them as out-of-network providers. TeamHealth claimed United was unjustly enriched and breached an implied-in-fact contract, also asserting statutory claims under the Prompt Pay and Unfair Claims Practices Acts.The case was initially removed to federal court, which found no ERISA preemption and remanded it to state court. The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada ruled in favor of TeamHealth, awarding them compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees. United appealed the judgment and petitioned to seal certain court documents.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict on unjust enrichment but not on the implied-in-fact contract or statutory claims. The court held that ERISA did not preempt TeamHealth’s claims and that United was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Unfair Claims Practices Act claim, as the statute did not provide a private right of action for medical providers. The court affirmed the compensatory damages for unjust enrichment but vacated the punitive damages award, remanding for recalculation to a 1:1 ratio of compensatory to punitive damages. The court also reversed the prejudgment interest and attorney fees awards under the Prompt Pay Act and remanded for a new determination of prejudgment interest.Additionally, the court denied United’s petition to seal certain documents, finding that United failed to meet its burden to demonstrate the necessity of sealing. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to seal parts of the record. View "UnitedHealthCare Insurance Company v. Fremont Emergency Services" on Justia Law

Virgin Valley Water District (the District) entered into a lease agreement with Paradise Canyon, LLC (Paradise Canyon) in 2011 to provide water shares for irrigating a golf course. The lease included a right of first refusal for Paradise Canyon to renew the lease, with the District having sole discretion to set rental rates after January 1, 2020. In 2019, the District increased the rental rate, leading Paradise Canyon to sue for declaratory relief and damages, alleging bad faith breach of the lease agreement.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted partial summary judgment for Paradise Canyon on certain claims and set others for a jury trial. The jury found that the District had breached the lease in bad faith and awarded damages to Paradise Canyon. The District appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the lease agreement unambiguously granted the District sole discretion to set rental rates after January 1, 2020. The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to interpret this unambiguous provision and in finding that the District breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Supreme Court also noted several procedural errors, including the trial court's improper judicial notice of its own factfinding, admission of prejudicial evidence, and unfair trial practices that limited the District's ability to present its case.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the portions of the trial court's judgment related to the interpretation of the lease renewal provisions and the jury's verdict on the rental rate and damages. The court affirmed the trial court's rulings on beneficial use and other uncontested matters. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DIST. VS. PARADISE CANYON, LLC" on Justia Law