Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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 order of the district court as to Appellants' motions to compel arbitration and remanded the case, holding that "where the nonsignatory seeking to compel arbitration demonstrates both the right to enforce the contract and that compelling another nonsignatory to arbitration is warranted under standard principles of contract law or estoppel, compelling arbitration is appropriate."At issue was whether a nonsignatory to a contract containing an arbitration clause can be compelled to participate in arbitration by another signatory. The district court denied both Appellants' first and second motions to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court reversed as to Appellants' first and second motions to compel arbitration, holding where a nonsignatory to a contract containing an arbitration provision moves to compel another nonsignatory to arbitrate, the nonsignatory seeking to compel arbitration must demonstrate the right to enforce the arbitration agreement and show that compelling the other nonsignatory to arbitration is warranted. View "RUAG Ammotec GmbH v. Archon Firearms, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court enforcing a noncompete covenant against three of its former employees (collectively, Respondents) on the basis that the covenant was unenforceable due to procedural unconscionability, holding that the court erred in invalidating the covenant based on procedural unconscionability and in failing adequately to consider whether the overbroad scope of the covenant could be modified.In determining that the noncompete agreement was unenforceable, the district court called into question whether employees could readily ascertain its terms and found that the noncompete covenant was overbroad. The court, however, declined to modify the covenant, stating that it could be redrafted in a manner to allow for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the order denying injunctive relief as to the noncompete provision, holding that the district court (1) erred in invalidating the noncompete covenant as procedurally unconscionable and therefore unenforceable as a matter of law; and (2) failed properly to analyze whether the noncompete covenant could be revised under Nev. Rev. Stat. 613.195(6). View "Tough Turtle Turf, LLC v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated his sentence as to restitution and the cost of a psychosexual evaluation and remanded this case for resentencing, holding that the district court erred by not undertaking an investigative inquiry prior to ordering Defendant to pay extradition restitution and by not addressing Defendant's alleged inability to pay the psychosexual evaluation cost.Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempted lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen years. At the sentencing hearing, the State requested that the court impose restitution for the cost of having Defendant extradited from Michigan to Nevada as well as the cost of Defendant's psychosexual evaluation, to which he agreed in plea negotiations. Defendant objected to both the extradition restitution and psychosexual evaluation cost on the grounds of his inability to pay. The district court imposed both the extradition restitution and psychosexual evaluation cost in full. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) erred by imposing extradition restitution without conducting the investigate inquiry required under Nev. Rev. Stat. 179.225(2); and (2) abused its discretion by imposing the cost of the psychosexual evaluation in full before making findings as to Defendant's ability to pay. View "Bolden v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint brought by a first deed of trust holder against its title insurance company for breach of contract and related claims, holding that there was no error.The insurer in this case denied coverage to a first deed of trust holder for its loss of interest in property following a foreclosed upon a "superpriority piece." At issue was whether the first deed of trust holder could recover for its loss of interest in the subject property by making a claim on its title insurance policy. The district court granted the title insurance company's motion to dismiss as to all claims, concluding that no coverage existed under the policy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing were properly dismissed; and (2) the first deed of trust holder was not entitled to relief on its remaining allegations of error. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in the underlying divorce action, holding that while parts of the decree were legally and factually supportable, other portions contained numerous legal and factual deficiencies.Following lengthy divorce proceedings the district court summarily adopted Respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of divorce without making any modifications. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court committed reversible error in doing so. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) utilizing a party's proposed order does not in and of itself constitute an abuse of discretion; and (2) the district court abused its discretion when it granted financial awards for alimony, attorney fees, and expert fees and when it unequally distributed the parties' community property and debt. View "Eivazi v. Eivazi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint alleging that Nev. Rev. Stat. 176.355, Nevada's statute providing that an execution must be effectuated by injection of a lethal drug, is unconstitutional because it gives the Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections discretion to determine the process by which a lethal injection is administered, holding that there was no error.Appellant, a death-row inmate, argued that section 176.355 lacked suitable standards because it afforded the Director complete discretion to determine the types, dosages, and sequencing of drugs to be used in the execution. The district court dismissed the challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute, combined with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, provided the Director with suitable standards to determine the process by which a lethal injection is to be administered. View "Floyd v. State, Dep't of Correction" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court sua sponte deciding to remove a protected minor's guardian and terminate the minor's guardianship based upon an ex parte communication, holding that the proceedings and resulting order did not comport with due process.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) has authority to sua sponte remove a guardian and terminate a guardianship even in the absence of a petition seeking removal and termination; (2) violated Defendant's right to due process by failing to give proper notice that it was contemplating removal and termination; (3) abused its discretion by failing to apply the applicable statutes and factors for removal and termination; and (4) made unsupported and clearly erroneous factual determinations in reaching its decision. View "In re D.M.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in this child custody matter, holding that when parents with court-ordered joint legal custody of a minor child disagree on medical decisions concerning that child, the district court breaks the tie by determining which course of action is in the child's best interest.The divorced parents in this case, who had joint legal custody of their eleven-year-old child, disagreed whether the child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. The court took note of government and professional groups' guidelines and research results regarding the safety of the COVID-19, accepted the child's pediatrician's recommendation, and found that vaccination was in the child's best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's finding of best interest aligned with the factors adopted in this opinion. View "Kelley v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied writ relief in this writ proceeding, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted.At issue was Nev. Rev. Stat. 357.080(3)(b), which prevents a private plaintiff from maintaining an action under the Nevada False Claims Act (NFCA) if the action is based on the same allegations or transactions that are the subject of a civil action to which the State or a political subdivision is already a party. The Supreme Court held (1) section 357.080(3)(b) does not contain a sequencing requirement and therefore requires dismissal of a private action brought under the NFCA even if the civil action was filed after the private action; (2) section 357.080(3)(b) does not bar a separate private action on behalf of a different governmental entity even where the two suits involve the same allegations or transactions; and (3) Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the law requires the district court to dismiss this private action such that writ relief is warranted. View "Orbitz Worldwide v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law