by
Pursuant to the protections of Nev. Const. art. I, 8, when a defendant requests a mistrial, jeopardy will also attach when a prosecutor intentionally proceeds in a course of egregious and improper conduct that causes the defendant prejudice that cannot be cured by means short of a mistrial. Petitioner was granted a mistrial on the basis for the late disclosure of certain documents. Petitioner later filed a renewed motion to dismiss pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied the motion, finding that the State had not intentionally withheld the documents from Petitioner. Petitioner then filed this original petition for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding (1) the prosecutor intentionally and improperly withheld exculpatory documents, which constituted egregious conduct causing prejudice to defendant that could not be cured by means short of a mistrial; and (2) therefore, double jeopardy barred reprosecution of Petitioner on all counts. View "Thomas v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

by
Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620, which prohibits a person from recording a telephone call unless both parties participating in the call consent to the recording, does not apply to the recording of interstate calls when the act of recording takes place outside Nevada. Respondent filed this class action suit against Appellant, a Delaware LLC that has its customer call centers equipped to record telephone calls in Arizona and Minnesota, alleging that Appellant violated section 200.620 by unlawfully recording certain telephone conversations without Respondent’s consent. The federal district court decided to certify a question concerning the applicability of section 200.620. The Supreme Court answered that the statute does not apply to recordings of telephone conservations with a person in Nevada without that person’s consent when the recordings are made by a party who is located and uses recording equipment outside of Nevada. View "Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles" on Justia Law

Posted in: Communications Law

by
Here the Supreme Court declined to apply Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(1)(b)’s statute of limitations for contract actions to nonjudicial foreclosures because statutes of limitations only apply to judicial actions, and a nonjudicial foreclosure by its nature is not a judicial action. After HSBC Bank USA, which was the beneficiary of a promissory note and deed of trust on Appellant’s home, recorded a notice of default and election to sell Appellant’s property “without any court action,” Appellant commenced this action to quiet title and extinguish HSBC’s interest in the property. The district court dismissed Appellant’s claim, thus rejecting Appellant’s argument that HSBC was barred from foreclosing on the mortgage property because the six-year limitation period began running with the initial notice of default and had therefore expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute of limitations set forth in section 11.190(1)(b) did not extinguish HSBC’s right to pursue a nonjudicial foreclosure because statutes of limitations apply only to judicial actions. View "Facklam v. HSBC Bank USA" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court’s exception to immunity for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct survives its adoption of the federal discretionary-function immunity test. Plaintiff sued Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (FTB) seeking damages for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct committed by FTB auditors. A jury awarded Plaintiff $139 million in damages on his tort claims and $250 million in punitive damages. The United States Supreme Court vacated the Supreme Court’s decision, holding that the Constitution does not permit Nevada to award damages against California agencies under Nevada law that are greater than it could award against Nevada agencies in similar circumstances. On remand, the Supreme Court held (1) FTB cannot invoke discretionary-function immunity to protect itself from Plaintiff’s intentional tort and bad-faith causes of action; (2) all of Plaintiff’s causes of action, except for his fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims, failed; (3) in regard to the IIED claim, substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings as to liability and an award of damages up to the amount of Nevada’s statutory cap; (4) FTB was entitled to the $50,000 statutory cap on Plaintiff’s IIED and fraud claims; and (5) FTB was immune from punitive damages because punitive damages would not be available against a Nevada government entity. View "Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt" on Justia Law

by
In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court addressed the appropriate legal standard for a district court’s consideration of a special litigation committee’s (SLC) recommendation that derivative claims should be dismissed because pursuing those claims would not be in the company’s best interest. In this case, the district court deferred to the SLC’s decision, dismissed the suit brought derivatively on behalf of DISH Network Corporation, and awarded costs to the SLC. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order granting the SLC’s motion to defer and vacated the portion of the district court’s order awarding costs for teleconferences because it lacked justifying documentation, holding (1) courts should defer to the business judgment of an SLC that is empowered to determine whether pursuing a derivative suit is in the best interest of a company where the SLC is independent and conducts a good-faith, thorough investigation, see Auerbach v. Bennett 393 N.E.2d at 996 (N.Y. 1979); and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the SLC was independent and that the SLC conducted a good-faith and thorough investigation. View "In re Dish Network Derivative Litigation" on Justia Law

Posted in: Business Law

by
This case provided the Supreme Court with the opportunity to clarify Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc., 62 P.3d 720 (Nev. 2003), and distinguish between direct and derivative claims by adopting the direct harm test as articulated in Tooley v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc., 845 A.2d 1031, 1033 (Del. 2004), which allows a direct claim when a shareholder injury is independent from corporate injury. At issue in this case was whether shareholders lacked standing to sue a corporation and its directors because the shareholders’ claims were derivative, rather than claims asserting a direct injury. Applying Tooley’s direct harm test to the facts of this case, the Supreme Court held that the shareholders’ complaint alleged derivative dilution claims, not direct claims. The court thus instructed the district court to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to the shareholders’ ability to file an amended complaint. View "Parametric Sound Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

Posted in: Business Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims of Appellant, a Nevada inmate who follows the Thelemic faith. After the State denied his request for a religious diet, Appellant filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In dismissing Appellant’s claims, the district court concluded as a matter of law that a religious diet is not central to the Thelemic faith. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) the district court erroneously used the centrality test rather than the sincerely held belief test in its analysis of Paliotta’s Free Exercise and RLUIPA claims; and (2) Appellant made a prima facie showing that his sincere religious beliefs may be entitled to protection under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA. View "Paliotta v. State Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

by
A homeowners association (HOA) is not limited to only one superpriority lien under the HOA lien statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3116, per parcel of property forever. In this case arising from conflicting claimed interests in real property located in Las Vegas, Appellant challenged the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings, holding (1) when an HOA rescinds a superpriority lien on property, the HOA may assert a separate superpriority lien on the same property based on monthly assessments, and any maintenance and nuisance abatement charges, accruing after the rescission of the previous superpriority lien; and (2) an HOA lien survives bankruptcy even though the homeowner’s personal obligation is extinguished upon a Chapter 7 discharge. View "Property Plus Investments, LLC v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

by
In this insurance policy cancellation dispute, the Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the insurance company and remanded the case so that the insured may pursue its claims against the insurer, and (2) affirmed summary judgment in favor of the broker against the insured. The court held (1) Nev. Rev. Stat. 687B.360 requires strict compliance, and therefore, without an express statement of a policyholder’s right to request additional information about the reasons for a policy’s cancellation, the cancellation notice is ineffective; and (2) the relationship between an insurance broker who obtained an insurance policy for a client and the insured client in this case did not give rise to a duty to monitor the client’s premium payments and to alert the client when the policy is about to be canceled for nonpayment of premiums. View "O.P.H. of Las Vegas, Inc. v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Posted in: Insurance Law

by
The district court lacks the authority to extend the deadline for filing the opening brief in a petition for judicial review of a public utilities commission. Rural Telephone Company (Appellant) filed an application with Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) seeking a change in its telephone service rates and charges. PUCN denied the requested changes. Appellant then filed a timely petition for judicial review in the district court and subsequently requested an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities. The district court denied the motion for an extension and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court lacked statutory authority to grant Appellant an extension of time to file its opening memorandum of points and authorities. View "Rural Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Nevada" on Justia Law