Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

A Nevada district court’s order denying a motion dismiss was not a final judgment on the issue of demand futility. Therefore, it was proper for the district court to accord preclusive effect to a subsequent final judgment from a foreign court.In this case involving whether a Nevada district court’s order denying a motion to dismiss constituted a final judgment on the issue of demand futility, the Supreme Court held (1) Nevada hereby applies the definition set forth within section 13 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, and under the Restatement, a judgment is final within the context of issue preclusion if it is “sufficiently firm” and “procedurally definite” in resolving an issue; and (2) in the instant case, the district court’s order denying Respondents’ motion to dismiss reserved for future determination the issue of demand futility, and therefore, the district court properly held that its prior order did not prohibit it from according preclusive effect to the subsequent order of the federal court. View "Kirsch v. Traber" on Justia Law

The time to appeal outlined in the Justice Court Rules of Civil Procedure (JCRCP), specifically the five-day period set forth in JCRCP 98, is jurisdictional and mandatory, therefore removing for the district court’s jurisdiction an untimely appeal from justice court.Petitioner filed a small claims complaint against real party in interest Las Vegas Paving Corporation (LVPC). The justice of the peace pro tempore granted Petitioner full relief. LVPC appealed to the district court. Petitioner moved to have the appeal dismissed under JCRCP 98. The district court denied the motion, thereby exerting jurisdiction to hear the matter despite an untimely appeal. Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition arresting the district court’s improper exercise of jurisdiction or compelling the district court to grant his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that because LVPC filed its appeal outside the allotted five-day period, the district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain LVPC’s untimely appeal. View "Southworth v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Dezzanis own a condominium and are members of the Homeowners' Association (HOA). Kern, an attorney, represents the HOA and advises its governing board. In a dispute regarding an extended deck on the Dezzani unit, the board issued a notice of violation with drafting assistance from Kern. Kern notified the Dezzanis that she represented the HOA. Kern and the Dezzanis exchanged several letters. The board held a hearing and upheld the notice. Throughout this time, Kern advised the HOA regarding the Dezzanis' and other members' deck extensions. The Dezzanis filed suit against Kern under NRS 116.31183, which allows a unit owner to bring a separate action for damages, attorney fees, and costs when an “executive board, a member of an executive board, a community manager or an officer, employee or agent of an association" takes retaliatory action against a unit's owner. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of their action, noting that the Dezzanis did not specify how Kern retaliated against them. An attorney is not an "agent" under NRS 116.31183 for claims of retaliatory action where the attorney is providing legal services for a common-interest community homeowners' association. In a consolidated case, the court held that attorneys litigating pro se and/or on behalf of their law firms cannot recover fees because those fees were not actually incurred by the attorney or the law firm, but they can recover taxable costs in the action. View "Dezzani v. Kern & Associates, Ltd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court denying Appellants’ petitions for judicial review challenging a 2007 decision by the Nevada Tax Commission regarding a tax refund request, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellants’ petitions for judicial review because they were untimely.In 2008, Appellants filed a second de novo action (Case 2) challenging the administrative denials of their refund requests. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Appellants failed to file a petition for judicial review. Appellants subsequently filed a petition for judicial review (Case 3). The ALJ affirmed the Commission’s 2007 decision. In 2014, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Appellants then filed a second petition for judicial review (Case 4) challenging the Commission’s 2014 decision. The district court consolidated the Case 3 and Case 4 petitions for judicial review and affirmed the Commission’s 2007 and 2014 decisions. The Supreme Court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellants’ Case 3 petition for judicial review and thus lacked the authority to consider the merits of Appellants’ Case 4 petition. View "K-Kel, Inc. v. State, Department of Taxation" on Justia Law

A Nevada district court does not have the authority to compel an out-of-state attorney to appear in Nevada for a deposition as a nonparty witness in a civil action pending in Nevada state court where the attorney has appeared pro hac vice in the action.Under the circumstances described above, the district court found that it had jurisdiction over the attorneys because they had appeared in Nevada court on a pro hac vice basis in this case. The court granted the motion to compel the depositions of the attorneys and ordered the depositions to take place in Las Vegas. The attorneys then filed the instant writ petition with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the petition for writ relief, holding that the district court had no authority to enforce out-of-state subpoenas issued to out-of-state nonparty witnesses or to compel those witnesses to appear in Nevada for deposition in a civil action. View "Quinn v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

Castillo entered into a vehicle and security agreement with the Credit Union. The Credit Union repossessed and sold the vehicle and notified Castillo that she owed a deficiency balance of $6,841.55. Castillo filed a complaint, alleging that the notice of sale violated the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and that that the case met the prerequisites for a class action under NRCP 23(a) and that the class was maintainable under NRCP 23(b). She never subsequently requested that the court certify the class due to the anticipation of discovery. Castillo amended her complaint, reducing the number of causes of action, and asserting that the district court had jurisdiction because "each [c]lass [m]ember is entitled to the elimination of the deficiency balance and the statutory damages [NRS 104.9625(3)(b)J," so "the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00." The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Castillo failed to demonstrate individual entitlement to damages in excess of $10,000. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed. Because Castillo sought appropriate injunctive relief, the district court possessed original jurisdiction. In Nevada, aggregation of putative class member claims is not permitted to determine jurisdiction. A claim for statutory damages can be combined with a claim for elimination of the deficiency amount to determine jurisdiction. View "Castillo v. United Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law

The gaming privilege in Nev. Rev. Stat. 463.120(6), which was enacted in 2017 through Senate Bill 376 and protects certain information and data provided to the gaming authorities, applies prospectively only and does not apply to any request made before the effective date of this act.The district court applied the gaming privilege to deny a motion to compel discovery. The information was requested through discovery before the effective date of section 463.120(6) but the motion to compel was filed after that date. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred because (1) the pertinent inquiry for determining whether the gaming privilege applied to the information was the date of the initial discovery request seeking that information and not the date the requesting party sought an order from the court to compel the opposing party to comply with that discovery request; and (2) the discovery requests were made before section 463.120(6) became effective, and therefore, the statute did not apply to the information sought by those discovery requests. View "Okada v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

At issue was whether untimely service of a petition for judicial review on the Attorney General mandates dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court held (1) while service of a petition for judicial review on the Attorney General under Nev. Rev. Stat. 233B.130(2)(c)(1) is mandatory and jurisdictional and must be effected within the statutorily prescribed forty-five-day period, that time period can be extended when good cause is shown under section 233B.130(5); (2) the district court may exercise its authority to extend the forty-five-day period either before or after the service period has run; and (3) because the district court in this case did not determine whether good cause to extend the time to serve the Attorney General existed before declining to consider Appellant’s motion to extend the time for service, this matter must be remanded for such a determination. View "Heat & Frost Insulators and Allied Workers Local 16 v. Labor Commissioner" on Justia Law

The Nevada Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition arising from a denial of a motion to dismiss in a foreclosure deficiency action. In this case, petitioners moved to dismiss the underlying case on the ground that it was time-barred by Utah's antideficiency statute. The court addressed the application of the antideficiency statutes in previous cases and held these cases provided that, in a deficiency action where the parties have an enforceable choice-of-law provision, before the district court applies the antideficiency statute from the parties' chosen jurisdiction, the court must first determine whether that statute, by its terms, has extraterritorial reach. Here, the court clarified that, if a party seeks to apply another jurisdiction's antideficiency statute to a Nevada deficiency action, and the courts of that jurisdiction have addressed the statute's extraterritorial application, the court will follow that jurisdiction's determination regarding this issue rather than independently construe the antideficiency statute to assess whether it can be applied extraterritorially. In this case, because the Utah Supreme Court already determined that Utah's antideficiency statute did not apply extraterritorially, that decision controlled. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss. View "Soro v. The Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

At issue was when it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to grant extraordinary relief in the form of advisory mandamus.In this petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging the district court’s denial of Petitioners’ motion to dismiss, Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to direct the district court to vacate and reconsider its motion without applying the doctrine of cross-jurisdictional class-action tolling to their statute of limitations defenses. The Supreme Court declined to grant relief relief because (1) the district court did not consider the statute-based argument Petitioners made to the Supreme Court due to Petitioners’ failure to cite the statute until the hearing on their motion to dismiss; (2) this court’s clarification of the law would not alter the district court’s disposition; and (3) the district court’s decision to defer final decision on Petitioners’ statute of limitations defenses pending further factual and legal development was sound and not the proper basis for extraordinary writ relief. View "Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law