Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellants' complaint on several alternative grounds and denying Appellants' motion to amend, holding that this appeal was foreclosed as far as it concerned the district court's dismissal ruling.Appellants filed a complaint alleging wrongful death and negligence against several defendants, but certain defendants were never served. The "Genting defendants" moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other things, that the district court could not exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over them and that the complaint should be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The district court dismissed the complaint under Nev. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (5) and (6) and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants' appeal of the dismissal of the complaint suffered from a fatal procedural flaw; and (2) the district court was within its discretion in denying the motion to amend. View "Hung v. Berhad" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that traditional standing requirements may not apply when an appropriate party seeks to enforce a public official's compliance with Nevada's separation of powers clause, provided that the issue is likely to recur and there is a need for future guidance.Appellant filed a complaint alleging that Respondents' dual service as members of the state legislature and as employees of the state or local government violated the separation of powers clause in the Nevada Constitution. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, concluding that Appellant did not allege a personal injury for traditional standing and did not satisfy the requirements of the public importance exception to standing. The Supreme Court reversed after limitedly expanding the public importance exception in Nevada to cases such as the instant case, holding that the constitutional separation of powers challenge at issue met the requirements for the public-importance exception to standing. View "Nevada Policy Research Institute, Inc. v. Cannizzaro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Respondent judgment creditor timely domesticated a foreign judgment in Nevada and that Respondent's accomplishment of actual service of the domestication notice on a later date did not affect the judgment's enforceability, holding that there was no error.Respondent domesticated the foreign judgment within the rendering state's statute of limitations but did not perfect service of the domestication notice on Appellant judgment debtor under the rendering state's limitations period for judgment enforcement had passed. The district court denied Appellant's motion to set aside the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act, a foreign judgment is enforceable in Nevada if the judgment domesticates the judgment according to the provisions of the Act within the rendering state's limitations period and complies with the statutory notice provisions of the Act; and (2) enforcement of the foreign judgment did not violate due process. View "Flangas v. Perfekt Marketing, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's application seeking a writ of mandamus precluding the district court from requiring adherence to an unconstitutional statute, holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 52.380 violates the separation of powers doctrine.In 2019, the Supreme Court amended Nev. R. Civ. P. 35, which governs mental and physical examinations of a party that are ordered during discovery in civil litigation. Thereafter, the Legislature enacted section 52.380, which governs conditions for such examinations. Rule 35 disallows observers at certain mental examinations, prohibits the examinee's attorney from attending any examination, and allows audio recordings only upon a showing of good cause. Section 52.380, however, allows the examinee's attorney to attend and make audio recordings of all mental and physical examinations. The district court concluded that section 52.380 supersedes Rule 35 such that the real party in interest's examinations in this case must follow the statutory procedures. The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, holding (1) section 52.380 is unconstitutional because it attempts to abrogate an existing rule of procedure that this Court prescribed under its inherent authority to regulate the judicial process; and (2) the district court manifestly abused its discretion by allowing the examinations to proceed under section 52.380. View "Lyft, Inc. v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to Respondent against Appellant pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 68 after Appellant rejected an offer of judgment and was unsuccessful at trial, holding that the district court erred.At issue was whether the district court improperly offset Appellant's settlement funds from a third party in favor of first satisfying Appellant's judgment for attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court held that it did and reversed the district court's order as to the offset, holding (1) a party cannot make a claim for attorney fees and costs - and thus the district court cannot offset - against settlement funds from a third party that have not been reduced to a judgment; and (2) for an equitable offset to apply, there must be competing judgments between the parties that are mutually owed and mutually demandable. View "Harrison v. Ramparts, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that divorce jurisdiction requires mere residence - not domicile - and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case under Nev. Rev. Stat. 125.020.Appellant and Respondent married in Saudi Arabia. In 2018, Respondent obtained a student visa and moved to Las Vegas. In 2020, Appellant and the child obtained dependent visas and also moved to Las Vegas. Two months later, Appellant filed a complaint for divorce. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Appellant could not establish domicile - or intent to remain in Nevada - so that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 125.020. The district court granted the motion, finding that, because residence is synonymous with domicile under section 125.020 and neither party had established domicile as a matter of law, dismissal was necessary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under section 125.020, residence means mere residence - not domicile - and Nev. Rev. Stat. 10.155 defines residence as physical presence; and (2) because Appellant had been physically present in Nevada for at least six weeks before she filed her divorce complaint, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 125.020. View "Senjab v. Alhulaibi" on Justia Law

In this case examining the proper scope of compensatory fines and attorney fees imposed as sanctions in contempt proceedings the Supreme Court held that a contempt sanction requiring the condemner to pay money to the complainant is civil in nature and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Edward Detwiler in contempt but erred in requiring him to pay attorney fees incurred before his contempt began.In this case challenging the fraudulent sale of a vehicle, a Bank obtained an order requiring Detwiler to turn over certain cars. When the Bank was unsuccessful at securing Detwiler's compliance with the turnover order it moved to have Detwiler held in civil contempt of court. The district court held Detwiler in contempt and ordered Detwiler to pay the Bank's attorneys fees. Detwiler petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the contempt order. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court may correct a mistake in naming a party that causes no prejudice; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by holding Detwiler in contempt; (3) compensatory sanctions for contempt are civil, not criminal; and (4) the district court abused its discretion by imposing an additional $100,000 sanction. View "Detwiler v. District Court" on Justia Law