Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Here, the Supreme Court adopted the common interest rule that allows attorneys to share work product with third parties that have common interest in litigation without waiving the work-product privilege.Petitioner shared purported work-product material through emails with third parties who were intervening plaintiffs in the litigation and were suing the same defendants on similar issues. The district court concluded, without reviewing the emails, that Petitioner must disclose the emails based on his insufficient showing of common interest between him and the intervening plaintiffs. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief and directed the district court to refrain from compelling disclosure of the emails before it conducts an in camera review to establish clear findings concerning the work-product privilege, holding that Petitioner and the intervening Plaintiffs shared common interest in litigation. View "Cotter v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The time limitations set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 107.080(5)-(6) do not apply to an action challenging a Nev. Rev. Stat. chapter 107 nonjudicial foreclosure where it is alleged that the deed of trust had been extinguished before the sale because such an action challenges the authority to conduct the sale, rather than the manner in which the foreclosure was conducted.Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations in section 107.080(5)-(6) because Plaintiff failed to file its complaint within ninety or 120 days of the deed-of-trust foreclosure sale. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 107.080(5) only applies to actions challenging the procedural aspects of a nonjudicial deed-of-trust foreclosure sale; and (2) Plaintiff’s action for quiet title in this case was appropriately governed by Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.080, which provides for a five-year statute of limitations. View "Las Vegas Development Group, LLC" on Justia Law

Nev. R. Civ. P. 62(d) must be read in conjunction with Nev. R. Civ. P. 62(e) such that, upon motion, state and local government appellants are generally entitled to a stay of a money judgment pending appeal without being required to post a supersedes bond or other security.The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Clark County Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner’s motion to stay enforcement of the attorney fees and costs judgment awarded to Las Vegas Review-Journal (LVRJ) under Nev. Rev. Stat. 239.011(2) after LVRJ prevailed on its public records request to obtain certain autopsy reports. The Court held that, under rules 62(d) and 62(e), the Coroner’s Office, as a local government entity that moved for a stay, was entitled to a stay of the money judgment without bond or other security as a matter of right. View "Clark County Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner v. Las Vegas Review-Journal" on Justia Law

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