Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Jonathan Eluterio Martinez-Garcia, a juvenile offender, attacked his 11th-grade English teacher and subsequently pleaded guilty to attempted murder, attempted sexual assault, and battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm. The district court sentenced him to two consecutive prison terms of 8 to 20 years and a concurrent term of 6 to 15 years, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 40 years with parole eligibility after 16 years. Martinez-Garcia moved to reconsider the sentence, arguing it was illegal and that he was entitled to parole eligibility after 15 years under NRS 213.12135(1)(a). The district court treated the motion as one to correct an illegal sentence and denied it.Martinez-Garcia appealed the district court's decision, contending that his sentence should reflect parole eligibility after 15 years as mandated by NRS 213.12135(1)(a) for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. He argued that the sentence imposed was illegal because it provided for parole eligibility after 16 years, contrary to the statute. The State argued that the sentence complied with the statutes governing the offenses to which Martinez-Garcia pleaded guilty.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that NRS 213.12135(1)(a) provides for parole eligibility for juvenile nonhomicide offenders after 15 years by operation of law, without requiring resentencing or amendment of the judgment of conviction. The court concluded that the statute does not render a sentence illegal if it otherwise conforms to the sentencing statutes for the offenses committed. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order denying Martinez-Garcia's motion to correct an illegal sentence, acknowledging that he will be eligible for parole after 15 years despite the longer parole-eligibility period stated in the judgment of conviction. View "GARCIA VS. STATE" on Justia Law

Anthony Ray Price was charged with two felonies and his cases were stayed pending a competency determination. Two doctors evaluated Price and found him likely not competent, with signs of possible malingering. The district court found Price incompetent to stand trial and ordered him to competency treatment at Lakes Crossing Center. While on the waitlist for the treatment facility, Price was held at the Washoe County Detention Center. The State requested a second evidentiary hearing, believing Price was feigning incompetence. At the hearing, two witnesses from the detention center testified that they had no concerns about Price's behavior or mental health. The district court then found Price competent to stand trial.Price filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by finding him competent based on jail information rather than input from the Administrator of the Division of Public and Behavioral Health, as required by NRS 178.425(4).The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and determined that NRS 178.425(4) mandates that once a defendant charged with a felony is found incompetent, only the Administrator or their designee can determine competency. The district court's decision to find Price competent without input from the Administrator was a manifest abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the district court to vacate its order finding Price competent to stand trial. View "PRICE VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Petitioners Scott Black, George Smith, and Jerome Nadal were directors of Globe Photos, Inc., a company that owned a valuable portfolio of celebrity and musician images. In 2020, Globe filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, leading to the liquidation of its assets, which left nothing for unsecured creditors or shareholders. In 2023, shareholders Sean Goodchild, Mike Meader, David Morton, and Klaus Moeller sued the petitioners in Nevada state court, alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties by mismanaging Globe's assets and approving a "sham bankruptcy."The district court denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss, concluding that the shareholders had pleaded a direct cause of action rather than a derivative one. The court found that the shareholders had standing to sue and that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and determined that the shareholders' claim was derivative, not direct. Under Delaware law, which governs because Globe was incorporated in Delaware, a claim is derivative if the corporation suffered the harm and would benefit from any recovery. The court found that the alleged harm was to Globe, as its assets were wasted and sold cheaply, and any recovery would benefit Globe, not the shareholders directly. Consequently, the claim belonged to Globe's bankruptcy estate, and only the bankruptcy trustee had standing to assert it.The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition for a writ of prohibition, instructing the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to dismiss and to enter an order granting the motion to dismiss the shareholders' claim against the petitioners. View "BLACK VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

H.B., III, a minor, needed a guardian after his father's death. He temporarily lived with his mother, Lasandra K., on the streets of Las Vegas before moving in with his uncle, Marques B. Marques petitioned the district court to be appointed as H.B.'s guardian, disclosing his felony conviction for attempted murder. The district court ordered a criminal background check, which confirmed the conviction. During the hearing, H.B.'s paternal grandmother supported Marques's petition, and Marques claimed Lasandra also supported it via text messages.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, denied the petition, concluding that Marques's felony conviction automatically disqualified him from serving as a guardian. Additionally, the court found that Marques failed to serve the petition and citation on all required relatives and interested parties, and did not meet the notice requirements or allege facts to support a waiver of notice. The petition was denied with prejudice, and the matter was closed.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that a felony conviction does not automatically disqualify a potential guardian under NRS 159A.061(3). The statute requires the district court to consider various factors, including a felony conviction, but no single factor is dispositive. The district court erred by not considering all relevant factors. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the petition based on Marques's failure to properly effectuate service. The dismissal was affirmed without prejudice, and the district court was instructed to amend its order accordingly. View "IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF H.B. III" on Justia Law

MMV Investments LLC extended loans totaling approximately $12 million to Dribble Dunk LLC and All Net, LLC between 2010 and 2012, with Jackie L. Robinson personally guaranteeing the loans. The loans were intended for building a professional basketball arena in Las Vegas. The guaranty agreement included a provision stating that Robinson would be responsible for repaying the loans even if the claims against Dribble Dunk and All Net became time-barred. Respondents defaulted on the loans, but Robinson indicated an intention to repay them in a June 2021 email. MMV filed a complaint in 2021 asserting various contract and fraud claims.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted the respondents' motion to dismiss, finding that MMV's breach-of-guaranty claim against Robinson was not viable because the statute of limitations had expired on the breach-of-contract claims against Dribble Dunk and All Net. The court also found that Robinson's guaranty was void under Nevada law because the obligations it guaranteed were time-barred.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the breach-of-guaranty claim against Robinson. The court held that Robinson's guaranty, which included a waiver of the statute-of-limitations defense, was enforceable under Nevada law. The court reasoned that a party may contractually waive a statute-of-limitations defense, and such waivers do not violate public policy. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order dismissing the breach-of-guaranty claim against Robinson and remanded for further proceedings on that claim. However, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of MMV's breach-of-contract claims against Dribble Dunk and All Net, as Robinson's email did not toll or restart the statute of limitations. View "MMV INVS. LLC VS. DRIBBLE DUNK, LLC" on Justia Law

Nikos Sharp was charged with several criminal offenses related to child abuse or neglect following an investigation by the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS). Sharp sought information from DFS reports involving the alleged victim, E.S., which included the identities of individuals who reported the abuse. The district court ordered DFS to disclose this information despite DFS's objections.The district court reviewed the reports in camera and initially released redacted versions to Sharp. Sharp then requested unredacted versions, including the identities of the reporters. The district court granted this request, and DFS's motion for reconsideration was denied. DFS subsequently sought relief through an original writ petition.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that NRS 432B.290(4) provides a limited privilege for reporter identities, protecting them if DFS determines that disclosure would harm an investigation or the life or safety of any person. The court found that this limited privilege did not apply in this case because DFS had not made such a determination. Consequently, the district court did not err in ordering the disclosure of the reporter identities. The Supreme Court of Nevada denied the petition, affirming the district court's decision. View "Clark County Department of Family Services v. District Court" on Justia Law

Angalia B., the legal guardian and Educational Decision Maker (EDM) for J.B., a student at a Clark County School District (CCSD) elementary school, requested J.B.'s education records under FERPA and NRS 392.029(1). After receiving the records, Angalia suspected that certain emails were missing and requested all communications, including emails stored in CCSD's Google Vault. When CCSD did not respond, Angalia filed a motion to join CCSD to J.B.'s ongoing dependency case and to compel the production of the emails. CCSD opposed, arguing that the emails were not education records under FERPA and NRS 392.029(1) as they were not in J.B.'s permanent file. The district court ruled that the emails were education records and ordered CCSD to produce them.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. The court determined that the emails stored in CCSD's Google Vault were maintained by CCSD, satisfying the second prong of the FERPA definition of education records. However, the court found that the district court erred in determining that the emails were directly related to J.B. without first reviewing their content. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted the petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its order compelling CCSD to produce the emails.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the district court must perform an in camera review of the emails to determine if they are directly related to J.B. If the emails are found to be directly related, they will qualify as education records under FERPA. The court emphasized that records are maintained when stored in a secure database, such as Google Vault, and that the definition of "maintained" should be interpreted broadly to accommodate future technological advancements. View "Clark County School District v. District Court" on Justia Law

Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC, purchased an underground storage tank from Modern Welding Company of California, Inc. in 2008, which came with a one-year express warranty. In 2016, Golden Gate discovered a crack in the tank and sought replacement under the warranty, but Modern refused, citing the expired warranty. Golden Gate sued Modern, among others, initially for negligence and breach of express warranty, later amending the complaint to include a breach of implied warranty claim.The Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County granted summary judgment in favor of Modern, finding that both the express and implied warranty claims were time-barred. The court also awarded Modern attorney fees and costs. Golden Gate appealed, arguing that the discovery rule should toll the statute of limitations for the implied warranty claim.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that discovery tolling does not apply to breach of implied warranty claims under the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The court emphasized that NRS 104.2725(2) specifies that a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues upon delivery of the goods, regardless of the buyer's knowledge of the breach. Therefore, Golden Gate's implied warranty claim, filed in 2019, was time-barred as the statute of limitations expired in 2012.Additionally, the Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of attorney fees to Modern. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, including the summary judgment and the post-judgment award of attorney fees. View "Golden Gate/S.E.T. Retail of Nevada, LLC v. Modern Welding Co. of California, Inc." on Justia Law

Kenneth Vaughn, a self-described Moorish National, was convicted by a jury of six counts of offering a false instrument for filing or record, two counts of simulation of summons, complaint, judgment, order, or other legal process, and two counts of intimidating a public officer. Vaughn sent documents to his landlords and the Clark County Recorder's office, claiming ownership of properties he did not own and threatening public officers when his documents were not recorded. He was sentenced as a habitual criminal to an aggregate prison term of 5-20 years and ordered to pay $19,600 in restitution.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County adjudicated Vaughn as a habitual criminal and denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds. Vaughn represented himself at trial with standby counsel and was convicted on all counts. He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing several grounds including the denial of his motion to dismiss, insufficient evidence, prejudicial witness testimony, misleading jury instructions, improper habitual criminal adjudication, and an unsupported restitution award.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that the State failed to prove the elements of the charges under NRS 239.330(1) because the documents Vaughn attempted to record were not of a type that could be recorded under state or federal law. Consequently, the court reversed Vaughn's conviction on the six counts of offering a false instrument for filing or record. The court also reversed the restitution award, finding that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence. However, the court affirmed Vaughn's conviction on the remaining counts and upheld the habitual criminal adjudication and the sentence imposed for those counts. View "VAUGHN VS. STATE" on Justia Law

Leanne Nester and Cody Gamble divorced in 2022, with custody arrangements for their two minor children outlined in the divorce decree. Gamble later moved to modify custody, and during the proceedings, a press organization requested media access, which the district court granted. Nester moved for reconsideration, seeking to close the hearing to protect sensitive information about the children, including medical and Child Protective Services records. The district court denied her motion, interpreting a previous case, Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court, as precluding closure of family law proceedings.The district court concluded it lacked discretion to close the hearing, stating there was no statute or rule allowing it. Nester then sought writ relief from the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that the district court misinterpreted Falconi and failed to consider her privacy interests and those of her children.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its interpretation of Falconi. The court clarified that Falconi does not prohibit the closure of family law proceedings but requires a case-by-case analysis to determine if closure is warranted. The court outlined that closure is permissible if it serves a compelling interest, there is a substantial probability that the interest could be harmed without closure, and no alternatives to closure would adequately protect the interest.The Supreme Court of Nevada granted Nester's petition, directing the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to close the hearing and to reconsider the motion using the test outlined in Falconi. The court emphasized the need for the district court to properly apply the factors to determine whether closure is justified. View "NESTER VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law