Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Steve Eggleston sued Clark County and Georgina Stuart, a social worker, alleging violations of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Eggleston claimed that Stuart coerced him into signing temporary guardianship papers for his children during an ongoing child abuse/neglect investigation by threatening that his children would be permanently removed from his care if he did not comply. Stuart and Clark County moved for summary judgment, arguing that their actions were protected by qualified immunity and discretionary-act immunity. The district court denied their motion.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada denied the motion for summary judgment, leading Stuart and Clark County to file a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the order. The district court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Stuart's conduct violated clearly established law and whether her actions were protected by discretionary-act immunity.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and granted the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Stuart was entitled to qualified immunity on Eggleston's substantive and procedural due process claims because her conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights. The court also held that Stuart was entitled to discretionary-act immunity on Eggleston's IIED claim, as her actions involved individual judgment and were based on considerations of social policy. The court directed the district court to vacate the order denying summary judgment and to enter an order granting summary judgment in favor of Stuart and Clark County. View "Clark County v. District Court" on Justia Law

A child protection agency filed a petition alleging that a child, A.T., was in need of protection after A.T.'s sibling, K.T., died from head trauma and a leg fracture. The mother, Tautiana Bellamy, witnessed the abuse by her boyfriend but did not protect K.T. Consequently, the Clark County Department of Family Services took protective custody of A.T. and filed a petition alleging abuse or neglect. Bellamy entered a no-contest plea to the petition, which the district court accepted over the objection of the deputy district attorney.The district court treated the no-contest plea as an admission, allowing the case to proceed without an evidentiary hearing. The Clark County Department of Family Services and the District Attorney's Office filed a petition for a writ of certiorari or mandamus, arguing that a no-contest plea is not permissible without the prosecutor's agreement. They contended that the statute only allows for admission or denial of allegations.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and held that a district court may accept a no-contest plea in NRS Chapter 432B dependency proceedings. The court found that the statute's language does not explicitly prohibit no-contest pleas and that such pleas align with the legislative intent of providing swift resolution in child protection cases. The court emphasized that accepting a no-contest plea does not infringe on the prosecutor's functions and helps avoid delays that could harm the child's welfare. The petition for a writ of certiorari or mandamus was denied. View "In re A.T." on Justia Law

Raymond Brown pleaded guilty to residential burglary and was sentenced to probation. The State of Nevada filed a motion to correct the sentence, arguing that Brown's prior burglary convictions made him ineligible for probation under NRS 205.060(3). The district court denied the motion after a hearing. The State then petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, challenging the district court's order.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada reviewed the case and denied the State's motion to correct Brown's sentence. The State argued that the district court abused its discretion and acted beyond its jurisdiction by placing Brown on probation. The State also contended that it could not appeal the order denying its motion, thus justifying the need for writ relief.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and determined that the State had an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the order denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court concluded that the State had the right to appeal the district court's order, as motions to correct an illegal sentence are considered postconviction challenges to a judgment of conviction. The court analogized such motions to motions for a new trial, which are appealable by either party under NRS 177.015(1)(b). Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied the State's petition for writ relief, as the State had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of an appeal. View "State v. District Court (Brown)" on Justia Law

The State of Nevada charged Matthew Desavio with a felony for making threats or conveying false information concerning an act of terrorism. Desavio was found incompetent to stand trial and was ordered to be transferred for competency restoration treatment. However, the State failed to transfer him, leading to a nearly 90-day delay. Desavio moved to dismiss the charge due to this delay, and the district court initially held the Nevada Division of Public and Behavioral Health in contempt and fined them, but eventually dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County reviewed the case and dismissed the criminal complaint without prejudice due to the State's failure to transfer Desavio for competency restoration treatment. The State appealed, arguing that the district court lacked a legal basis to dismiss the case under the competency statutes and the recent decision in State v. Gonzalez. The district court found that the delay violated Desavio's due process rights, which constituted ongoing prejudice.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the dismissal without prejudice was appropriate to remedy the ongoing prejudice to Desavio's due process rights. The court noted that the district court had tried lesser sanctions, such as holding the Division in contempt and imposing fines, but these measures proved ineffective. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the charge without prejudice, as it was a necessary step to address the violation of Desavio's due process rights. View "State v. Desavio" on Justia Law

Brandon Urias was charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly violating NRS 484E.040 after crashing into a parked car in a Walmart parking lot and failing to leave a note with his contact information. The justice court found Urias guilty and imposed a fine. Urias appealed to the district court, arguing that NRS 484E.040 is not enforceable on private property and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to convict him. The district court denied his appeal, concluding that the statute's language did not limit its enforceability to specific locations.Urias then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Nevada. The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether NRS 484E.040 applies to private property. The court examined the statutory language and legislative history, concluding that NRS 484E.040 does not apply to private property, such as parking lots, but is limited to highways to which the public has access or highways to which persons have access as invitees or licensees.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that NRS 484E.040 was not enforceable against Urias for the incident in the Walmart parking lot. Consequently, the court granted Urias's petition and directed the district court to vacate its order denying Urias's appeal and to proceed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "URIAS VS. DIST. CT." on Justia Law

Oscar Hernandez allegedly sustained injuries from a RIDGID-branded nail gun purchased from Home Depot. The nail gun, designed and manufactured by other companies, was marketed and sold by Home Depot under a trademark license agreement with Ridge Tool Company. Hernandez filed a complaint against Ridge Tool Company and Home Depot, asserting claims of strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of fitness. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.The respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ridge Tool Company should not be held strictly liable as it only licensed the RIDGID trademark and did not participate in the design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of the nail gun. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment on all claims except the strict liability claim, noting the lack of controlling precedent in Nevada on whether a trademark licensor can be held strictly liable under such circumstances. The court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Nevada.The Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that Nevada does not impose strict products liability on an entity whose only involvement with a defective product is licensing its trademark for marketing purposes. The court adopted the rule set forth in section 14 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, which states that a trademark licensor is not subject to strict liability unless it substantially participates in the design, manufacture, or distribution of the product. The court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that a trademark licensor cannot be held strictly liable for damages caused by a defective product if its role is limited to licensing its trademark. View "HERNANDEZ VS. THE HOME DEPOT, INC." 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