Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In a personal injury case, Alejandro Lopez Aguilar, the appellant, had filed a lawsuit against Lucky Cab Co. and Adugna Demesash, the respondents. Before trial, Lucky Cab made an offer of judgment to Aguilar for a lump sum of $150,001, explicitly stating that this amount did not include prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs incurred to date. Aguilar accepted the offer. Lucky Cab sent Aguilar both a check for $150,001 and a stipulation and order for dismissal. However, Aguilar did not process the check or consent to the dismissal, arguing that Lucky Cab had not fully paid the offer amount as it had not yet paid any costs or prejudgment interest. The district court granted dismissal with prejudice, concluding that Lucky Cab was entitled to dismissal once it tendered payment within the stipulated window. Aguilar appealed.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s decision. The high court clarified that when an offer of judgment explicitly excludes costs, expenses, interest, and attorney fees, it promises two sums if accepted: (1) the principal amount for the claim(s), specified in the offer; and (2) a separate amount for costs, expenses, interest, and attorney fees that would be recoverable if a judgment were entered based on that offer. Consequently, under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure (NRCP) 68(d)(2), an offeror cannot obtain dismissal unless they pay both the principal offer and the additional allowance for costs, expenses, interest, and attorney fees. In this case, Lucky Cab did not pay the pre-offer costs and interest that were promised and that Aguilar would be entitled to as a prevailing party. The case was remanded for the district court to determine the amount of awardable pre-offer costs and interest that Lucky Cab must pay to obtain dismissal. View "Aguilar v. Lucky Cab Co." on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada reversed and remanded a district court order that had dismissed a professional negligence action for being time-barred. The case was brought by Gina Engelson, as the special administrator of the estate of Lenore Meyer, against Dignity Health (doing business as St. Rose Dominican Hospital-Siena Campus) and Grape Holdings LLC (doing business as Sage Creek Post-Acute). Lenore Meyer had developed a severe bedsore while being treated at these facilities. Meyer's family alleged that the care provided by the facilities fell below the standard of care in multiple ways, including failing to timely and adequately treat the bedsore. Meyer eventually died, and exactly one year after her death, Engelson filed a professional negligence complaint against the facilities. The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred, finding that the complaint was filed more than a year after the estate and its special administrator knew or should have known about the relevant legal injury.Upon review, the Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as time-barred. The Court of Appeals clarified that an affidavit of merit, which is required to support a professional negligence-based wrongful death claim, need not opine as to the element of causation. The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence did not irrefutably demonstrate that the estate or its special administrator discovered or should have discovered the legal injury more than a year before the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Engelson v. Dignity Health" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice lawsuit, Kimberly Taylor claimed that Dr. Keith Brill breached the accepted standard of medical care by causing damage during her surgery. The Supreme Court of Nevada found that the lower court had made several errors during the trial. Firstly, the lower court should not have allowed any evidence or argument regarding Taylor's informed consent or assumption of risk, as Taylor's consent was uncontested and such information was irrelevant to determining whether Dr. Brill had conformed to the accepted standard of care. Secondly, the lower court should not have prohibited Taylor from presenting non-expert evidence to show that the costs of her medical damages were reasonable. The Supreme Court also found that the lower court should not have allowed evidence of insurance write-downs, as these did not create any payable benefit to Taylor. Finally, the lower court was wrong to limit the scope of Taylor's closing argument. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a new trial. View "Taylor v. Brill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing the underlying tort action for failure to timely effect service of process, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a request for enlargement of time to serve and dismissing the action.Appellants sued Respondent for personal injuries following a car collision. Because Appellants failed to serve the summons and complaint on Respondent within 120 days the district court issued an order to show cause, and the summons and complaint were served. Respondent moved to quash the service of process and to dismiss the complaint. The district court denied Appellants' untimely motion for an extension of time to serve process and granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly denied Appellants' untimely motion for an extension of time and properly dismissed the case under Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). View "Sabater v. Razmy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing a complaint for forum non conveniens, holding that the district court abused its discretion by granting the motion because the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden by not including a supporting affidavit.C.R. England, Inc., a trucking company incorporated and headquartered in Utah, hired Tesfaye Alamin, a Nevada resident, as a driver. Eric Pepper, a Texas resident, collided with Alamin's semitruck, and his family members (collectively, Pepper) brought a wrongful death lawsuit in Nevada against C.R. England and Alamin. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that Texas was a more appropriate forum. The motion, however, failed to include any supporting attachments or exhibits. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where the underlying motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens lacked a supporting affidavit, the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion. View "Pepper v. C.R. England" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioners' original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order striking a peremptory challenge of a judge, holding that if a party waives their right to a peremptory challenge under Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 48.1(5), that waiver also applies to any other party on the same side of a later consolidated action.Defendants in a second-filed case filed a peremptory challenge after their case was consolidated with an earlier-filed case. The district court found that the second-case defendants (Petitioners) were barred from filing a peremptory challenge post-consolidation because the first-case defendants had already waiver their right to a peremptory challenge under SCR 48.1(5). Petitioners challenged that ruling, seeking extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that parties in consolidated cases are entitled to an additional peremptory challenge under SCR 48.1(9) only if their first case is reassigned and not when the second case is transferred to be heard with the first. View "Reggio v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a trustee's petition for a writ of prohibition and reversed the order of the district court concluding that a nonresident trustee sued in a trust administration case was subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada, holding that the district court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the trustee.Plaintiff filed the underlying petition requesting that the district court assume jurisdiction over the trust at issue, remove the trustee and appoint a successor trustee. The trustee sought dismissal of the petition based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court concluded that it had jurisdiction and granted a petition to distribute the trust property on Plaintiff's behalf. The court then held the trustee in contempt for violating a temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition, holding that the district court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the trustee. View "In re Trust of Burgauer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a petition for extraordinary relief to address a matter of first impression before the Court regarding the procedures and burden of proof required to establish the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that extraordinary relief was warranted in the form of a petition for a writ of prohibition.At issue before the Supreme Court was the procedures and burden of proof required to establish the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. Petitioner petitioned the Court for a writ of prohibition or mandamus prohibiting the district court from compelling disclosure of documents from Petitioner's attorney-client privilege log under Nevada's crime-fraud exception and ordering the district court to find the documents undiscoverable. The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the district court properly granted disclosure of the privileged documents after conducting an in camera review under Nevada's crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. View "Seibel v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a third-party entity in a post-judgment collection action has party standing to appeal from an order of the district court resolving its petition to return property levied pursuant to a writ of execution.Jennifer Goldstein obtained a judgment against NuVeda, LLC for over $2.5 million. In post-judgment collection proceedings, Goldstein had a writ of execution serviced on Clark NMSD, LLC, and cash was seized. Clark NMSD filed a third-party claimant petition, which NuVeda joined, seeking return of the seized cash and requesting that Goldstein be prohibited from further collection activity. The district court denied the petition. Goldstein then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because Clark NMSD was not a party to the proceedings below it had not standing to appeal. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Clark NMSD had party standing to challenge the district court's order, and the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this appeal. View "Clark NMSD, LLC v. Goldstein" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff because the statute of limitations had expired and because Defendant had not timely served him, holding that there was no error.At issue was recently-amended Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(3), which requires that a district court extend the service period where a plaintiff timely moves for an extension and demonstrates that good cause for an extension exists. The Supreme Court held (1) in determining whether the plaintiff has made a good cause showing for extension of the service period exists, the district court must apply the factors set forth in Saavedra-Sandolva v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 245 P.3d 1198 (Nev. 2010), and Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 998 P.2d 1190 (Nev. 2000), to the extent those factors bear on tempted service/or whether circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control resulted in the failure timely to serve; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's motion to extend the service period. View "Moroney v. Young" on Justia Law