by
Felton, then employed by Hewlett-Packard, sustained a minor injury to his knee while volunteering on a Douglas County search and rescue team. Felton sought insurance benefits from Douglas County and its workers' compensation insurance carrier. The third-party claims adjustor, ASC, notified Felton that it had calculated his average monthly wage (AMW) for the purpose of determining the amount of benefits based upon the statutorily deemed wage of a search and rescue volunteer as set forth in NRS 616A.157, which is $2,000 per month. ASC awarded Felton a one-percent permanent partial disability (PPD) or whole person impairment (WPI). A hearing officer affirmed the award. Felton appealed only the determination that his AMW should be set at the statutorily deemed wage of a search and rescue volunteer. The appeals officer affirmed, holding that Felton was not entitled to an AMW that aggregated his statutorily deemed wage and his earned wage from his private employment. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. The plain language of the statutes and regulations requires the aggregation of concurrently earned wages. View "Felton v. Douglas County" on Justia Law

by
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

Posted in: Civil Procedure

by
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

Posted in: Civil Procedure

by
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

Posted in: Civil Procedure

by
Two days after Silver Springs Homeowner's Association recorded a notice of foreclosure sale, First Horizon Home Loans recorded its own notice of foreclosure sale. First Horizon was the first to hold its foreclosure sale and bought the property on a credit bid. Before First Horizon recorded its trustee's deed, Silver Springs held its foreclosure sale, at which SFR purchased the same property. SFR sued to quiet title. The district court granted First Horizon summary judgment, finding that Silver Springs had not provided the statutorily required notices pursuant to NRS 116.31162 and NRS 116.311635. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed and remanded, finding that the district court erred in finding Silver Springs' foreclosure sale invalid. Because NRS 116.31162 requires a homeowner's association (HOA) foreclosing on its interest to record its notice of foreclosure sale, any subsequent buyer purchases the property subject to that notice that a foreclosure may be imminent. Therefore, an HOA need not restart the entire foreclosure process each time the property changes ownership so long as the HOA has provided the required notices to all parties who are entitled. View "SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. First Horizon Home Loans" on Justia Law

by
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

by
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

by
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that the filing of a bar complaint does not create a per se conflict of interest that rises to the level of a violation of the Sixth Amendment, and defendant did not assert that the filing of the bar complaint adversely affected his counsel's behavior or caused his counsel to defend him less diligently, and thus he did not present a conflict-of-interest claim that would entitle him to relief. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying defendant's claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. View "Jefferson v. Nevada" on Justia Law

by
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order revoking probation and an amended judgment of conviction. The court held that in an appeal taken from an amended judgment of conviction, the appellant may only raise challenges that arise from the amendments made to the original judgment of conviction. In this case, defendant did not challenge the amendments made to his original judgment of conviction. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

by
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

Posted in: Civil Procedure