Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a general contractor (Perini) was sued in connection with alleged reinforcing steel defects on commercial construction project, Perini filed a counterclaim against the steel installer (Century) and the company to whom the steel installer assigned its assets (PCS). Century and PCS in turn filed third- and fourth-party complaints against several entities, including the company that provided structural engineering services for the project (Halcrow), alleging negligence, indemnity, contribution, an declaratory relief. Halcrow moved to dismiss the third- and fourth-party complaints, arguing that unintentional tort claims against design professionals in commercial construction projects are barred when the claimant incurs purely economic losses. The district court granted Halcrow's motion. The district court subsequently granted Century's and PCS's motions to amend their complaints to allege a claim for negligent misrepresentation. Halcrow then filed this petition for extraordinary relief. The Supreme Court issued the writ and directed the district court to vacate its order granting PCS and Century leave to amend their third- and fourth-party complaints, holding that, in commercial construction defect litigation, the economic loss doctrine applies to bar claims against design professionals for negligent misrepresentation where the damages alleged are purely economic. View "Halcrow, Inc. v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Employee was injured during the course of his employment with Employer. Employer subsequently issued a notice of claim acceptance to Employee. Two years after his claim's closure, Employee unsuccessfully asked Employer to reopen his claim. An appeals officer affirmed. At issue on appeal was Nev. Rev. Stat. 616C.390, which bars an employee from applying to reopen his workers' compensation claim after a year from its closure if the employee was "not off work as a result of the injury." The appeals officer interpreted the statute as requiring that an injured employee miss at least five days of work as a result of the injury to be considered "off work." The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 616.390 does not bar an employee from applying to reopen his claim after a year from its closure if the employee missed time from work as a result of his injury; (2) the appeals officer erred in reading a minimum-time-off-work requirement into the statute; and (3) because Employee missed the remainder of his shift on the day of his injury, he was "off work" as a result of his injury and was not therefore subject to the one-year limit on the reopening of his claims. View "Williams v. United Parcel Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant obtained a home loan from Countywide Home Loans. The promissory note was secured by a deed of trust naming Countrywide as the lender and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as beneficiary of the deed of trust. MERS assigned its interest in the deed of trust to HSBC Bank. Bank of America later acquired Countrywide and its assets, including Appellant's promissory note. After Appellant defaulted on the loan, Appellant participated in Nevada's Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP). BAC Home Loans Servicing, as a representative of Bank of America, appeared at the mediation. After the mediation, Appellant filed a petition for judicial review, which the district court denied. Appellant appealed, arguing that Bank of America lacked authority to negotiate a loan modification at the mediation because the note and deed of trust were assigned to two separate entities. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's denial of Appellant's petition for judicial review and refusal to impose sanctions, holding that because Bank of America was not the deed of trust beneficiary at the time of the FMP mediation, Bank of America failed to satisfy Nev. Rev. Stat. 107.086(4)'s attendance and participation requirement. Remanded. View " Bergenfield v. Bank of Am." on Justia Law

Deloitte and Touche (Deloitte), a public accounting firm, performed a financial audit for Global Cash Access Holdings (GCA). While performing a financial audit for another client Larry Krause, a CPA employed by Deloitte, obtained an FBI intelligence bulletin containing information about alleged illegal acts committed by GCA and members of its board of directors (Appellants). Deloitte disclosed the allegations to GCA's audit committee. A subsequent investigation revealed no evidence of misconduct on the part of GCA or Appellants. The investigation, however, resulted in a significant drop in GCA's stock price. Appellants filed a complaint for defamation and tortious interference against Deloitte and Krause (collectively, Deloitte). The district court granted Deloitte's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Deloitte's communications to the audit committee were protected by a conditional privilege. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) one who is required by law to publish defamatory matter is absolutely privileged to publish it when the communication is made pursuant to a lawful process and to a qualified person; and (2) Deloitte's statement to GCA's audit committee was therefore absolutely privileged as a matter of law because Deloitte communicated information about alleged illegal acts in accordance with federal securities law. View "Cucinotta v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding that Respondent bank initiated against a home owned by Appellants. Respondent purchased the home at the trustee's sale. When Appellants did not vacate, Respondent filed an unlawful detainer action. Appellants responded by filing a complaint seeking to quiet title to the property, alleging that Respondent did not own the promissory note or deed of trust and had foreclosed without proper notice under Nev. Rev. Sat. 107.080, invalidating the trustee's sale. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss Appellants' complaint, which the federal district court granted. Appellants appealed, arguing that the district court should not have ruled on the motion dismiss because the prior-exclusive-jurisdiction doctrine required the federal court to abstain in favor of the earlier-filed unlawful detainer action. The federal court agreed that if both the quiet title action and the unlawful detainer action were characterized as in rem or quasi in rem, then the court was required to vacate the district court's dismissal of the quiet title action. The Nevada Supreme Court accepted certification to answer the characterization of the parties' actions and held that quiet title and unlawful detainer proceedings are in rem or quasi in rem in nature. View "Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co." on Justia Law

Appellant filed an employment action against her former employer. Appellant initially authorized her attorney to settle with Respondent, but Appellant refused to sign the settlement agreement. Respondent filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court granted the motion and entered an order setting forth the terms of the parties' settlement. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding the order was not a final judgment because it did not dismiss or formally resolve Appellant's complaint. Respondent subsequently issued a check to Appellant for the settlement amount, which Appellant refused to accept. The district court then granted Respondent's motion to deposit the settlement proceeds with the district court. The order, however, failed to enter judgment in favor of either party or otherwise resolve the case. The district court then entered an order statistically closing the case on the basis that there had been a stipulated judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the district court's order was not substantively appealable because no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order statistically closing a case, and the order did not constitute a final, appealable judgment, as none was entered. View "Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC" on Justia Law

A police department initiated an internal investigation of Appellant, a veteran of the department, regarding allegations of insurance fraud. During an internal investigation meeting, Appellant was not provided a police protective association (PPA) representative because she had retained a private attorney. Appellant subsequently received a formal written reprimand. Appellant later filed a complaint with the Employee Management Relations Board (EMRB) against the PPA and the department. The EMRB denied Plaintiff's claims, and the district court denied Appellant's petition for judicial review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the EMRB correctly concluded that Nev. Rev. Stat. 289.080 did not impose a duty of fair representation on the PPA, and thus, Appellant was not entitled to have PPA representation present during the internal investigation meeting; and (2) the EMRB properly upheld the department's written reprimand of Appellant. View "Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't" on Justia Law

Wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. Husband did not join in the bankruptcy petition or file a separate petition for relief. Under bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy estate includes all of the marital community property. Wife claimed exemptions for two motor vehicles and property worth over $1,400, all of which was community property. The Trustee filed an objection on the grounds that a debtor spouse may exempt only a single vehicle and property worth no more than $1,000 under Nev. Rev. Stat. 21.090(1), and a non-debtor spouse has no right to claim any exemptions in a debtor spouse's bankruptcy. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court overruled the Trustee's objection, determining that Nevada law allows a debtor to claim motor vehicle and wildcard exemptions on behalf of a non-debtor spouse. The Trustee appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which certified a question to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that, based on section 21.090(1)(f) and (z)'s plain language, Nevada law does not allow debtors to claim motor vehicle and wildcard exemptions on behalf of their non-debtor spouses, and therefore, a judgment debtor in Nevada is limited to one motor vehicle exemption an other personal property exemptions not to exceed $1,000. View " In re Fox" on Justia Law

The City of Sparks traditionally made most personnel and budget decisions for the Sparks Municipal Court. The City and Municipal Court later entered into a dispute over the City's exercise of this authority. The district court subsequently enjoined the City from making such decisions in the future based on the Municipal Court's broad authority to manage its own affairs. The City appealed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the district court's order enjoining the City from interfering with the Municipal Court's ability to make personnel decisions, holding that the separation of powers doctrine and the Municipal Court's inherent authority barred the City from interfering with the Municipal Court's control over such decisions; and (2) reversed the district court's order as to the parties' budgetary dispute, holding (i) the Municipal Court's inherent power over its budget must be weighed against the City's authority over government finances, but (ii) the parties failed to develop the record sufficiently for the Court to determine whether the Municipal Court properly invoked its inherent powers on this point. Remanded. View " City of Sparks v. Sparks Mun. Court" on Justia Law

This dispute arose out of a written option contract under which Respondent had the right to purchase real property from Appellants for $8 million. The property was subject to a deed of trust securing approximately $1.3 million in debt. At issue was whether the Respondent or Appellants were required to pay off the $1.3 million debt. The district court granted summary judgment for Respondent, concluding that the option contract required Appellants to deliver clear title, meaning Appellants were required to remove the $1.3 encumbrance for a net $6.7 option price. Appellants appealed, arguing that the option contract contemplated that Respondent take title subject to preexisting encumbrances, so that Appellants received the full $8 million option price. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly interpreted the option contract and that the contract placed responsibility for the $1.3 million debt on Appellants' side of the ledger. View " Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC" on Justia Law