Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the district court's judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of attempted sexual assault, holding that when a child under the age of sixteen commits a delinquent act but is not charged until after turning twenty-one, no court has jurisdiction to hear the case.After he turned the age of twenty-one, Appellant was charged with committing delinquent acts as a fourteen-year-old. Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding that while the juvenile courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over children under twenty-one years of age who are alleged to have committed a delinquent act when the person was at least sixteen but less than eighteen years of age, the juvenile court loses jurisdiction once a child turns twenty-one, and, absent certain exceptions, the district court lacks jurisdiction over any charges of delinquent acts. View "Zalyaul v. State" 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 in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the grants of dismissal and summary judgment as to claims of improper actions taken by the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) during the completion of a construction project on Appellants' party following condemnation proceedings, holding that the district court erred in part.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing Appellants' claim for waste; (2) did not err in dismissing Appellants' separate cause of action for injunctive relief; (3) did not err in granting the RTC's motion for summary judgment as to Appellants' contract-based claims; and (4) erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the RTC as to Appellants' trespass claim and their request for declaratory relief. The Court vacated the order awarding RTC attorney fees and costs because, after remand, the RTC might not be the prevailing party. View "Iliescu v. Regional Transportation Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the district court entering summary judgment in this action concerning the assignability of the proceeds from a legal malpractice action, holding that the district court properly invalidated the assignment at issue.In question was the assignment of proceeds to an adverse party in the underlying litigation from which the alleged legal malpractice arose. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) public policy prohibits an assignment of proceeds from a legal malpractice claim to an adversary in the underlying litigation; (2) the district court properly invalidated the assignment at issue; and (3) an invalid assignment does not, by itself, preclude an injured client from pursuing a legal malpractice claim if the assignment has been set aside. View "Beavor v. Tomsheck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for failure to attach an affidavit of merit after concluding that her allegations sounded in professional negligence, holding that remand for further proceedings was required.At issue in this case was the relationship between Nevada's professional negligence statutes, Nev. Rev. Stat. Ch. 41A, and Nevada's elder abuse statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.1395, and the statutes' application to claims against skilled nursing home facilities. The district court concluded that Plaintiff's allegations sounded in professional negligence, which claims require Plaintiffs to include an affidavit of merit as part of their complaint, and then dismissed the complaint for failure to attach such an affidavit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) on the face of Plaintiff's complaint it was unclear whether the gravamen of her claims sounded in professional negligence rather than elder abuse; and (2) remand was required for further factual development before such a determination can be reached. View "Yafchak v. South Las Vegas Medical Investors, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court admitting a will to probate that was drafted by or for the decedent in Portugal and was written in Portuguese, where the decedent was domiciled in Maryland and the subject property at death was a house in Nevada, holding that the district court did not err in applying the will at issue to the decedent's entire estate.After the decedent died in Nevada, Respondent, the decedent's surviving spouse, filed a petition for general administration of the estate and to admit the will to probate. Appellant filed an objection to the petition, asserting that the will could not be probated in Nevada because it was signed in a foreign country. The district court admitted the will to probate. The Supreme Court affirmed, (1) the laws of relevant foreign states must be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity of an "authorized person" for the purpose of implementing the Uniform International Wills Act (UIWA), codified as Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 133A; (2) even if it is executed in a foreign county, a will that fails to comply with the UIWA can be probated in Nevada if it complies with Chapter 133; and (3) Appellant was not entitled to a will contest during the proceedings below. View "In re Estate of Sweet" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing a petition for adult name change under Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.270, holding that the district court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing the petition without resolution on the merits.Appellant filed a petition with the family division to change her name, stating that her reason for the name change was to conform her name to her gender identity. The district court summarily dismissed the petition for pending too long without any action, but the order provided no explanation as to what action Appellant failed to take. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court erroneously applied the relevant law. View "In re Change of Name Salazar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted mandamus relief in part in this case directing the district court to enter an order concerning Petitioner's custodial status consistent with the instructions set forth in this opinion, holding that Petitioner was entitled to mandamus relief in part.Petitioner was arrested, charged with criminal activity, release on bail, then taken into custody for allegedly violating his bail conditions. While he waited for an evidentiary hearing after a remand Petitioner brought this action asking the Court to consider the standards for pretrial release in general and as applied and then to direct his release. In the meantime, the district court re-released Petition to house arrest. The Supreme Court held (1) Petitioner's claims challenging the imposition of house arrest were not moot but the remaining claims were moot; (2) a defendant is constitutionally-entitled to a prompt hearing after being taken into custody from pretrial release, and the State bears the burden of demonstrating probable cause at the hearing; (3) a violation of a condition of house arrest may lead to statutory sanctions; and (4) the district court is required to make findings of fact on the record that each condition of pretrial release was the least restrictive means of ensuring public safety and the defendant's return to court. View "Johnson v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in denying Appellant's motion to compel arbitration and refusing to submit the arbitrability determination under the circumstances of this case to an arbitrator.Plaintiffs sued Airbnb, Inc. for wrongful death and personal injury alleging that Airbnb's services had been used by a party's host to rent the house where a shooting occurred, resulting in a fatality. Airbnb moved to compel arbitration, arguing that Plaintiffs had agreed to Airbnb's Terms of Service during the registration process for their accounts. The district court denied the motion to compel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Federal Arbitrability Administration governed the enforcement of arbitration agreement at issue, and because the agreement delegated the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, the district court erred in deciding the arbitrability question. View "Airbnb, Inc. v. Rice" on Justia Law