Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief in this challenge to a district court order reinstating a claim against a cigarette manufacturer under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA), holding that mandamus relief was not warranted.Plaintiffs brought filed suit against Petitioner, a cigarette manufacturer, alleging civil conspiracy and a violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA). The district court granted Petitioner's motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs were not consumer fraud victims under Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.600(1) because they never used Petitioner's products. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs were not consumer fraud victims under the statute. The district court then granted reconsideration, concluding that the earlier dismissal order was erroneous. Petitioner then brought this petition, arguing that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the deceptive trade practices claim against Petitioner because they never used Petitioner's products. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. View "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court confirming a foreign custody order, holding that the language of Nev. Rev. Stat. 125A.465 is plain and unambiguous and that the challenges to the registration of the foreign custody order were untimely.At issue was the proper interpretation of the portion of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act that precludes a party from challenging the registration of foreign child custody orders under section 125A.465 if the party fails to do so within twenty days of receiving notice of the request to register. Appellant, the father to the two minor children whose custody was at issue, filed a challenge to Respondent's attempt to register. The district court gave full faith and credit to the order and registered it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under section 125A.465's plain and unambiguous language this Court must apply the statute's twenty-day deadline to preclude untimely challenges to the registration of a foreign custody order. View "Blount v. Blount" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's petition because Nev. Rev. Stat. 361.610 was not satisfied by the timely filing of Appellant's other claims.Appellant purchased seventeen lots that it owned as tenants in common with Nye County and two other owners. After the owners failed to pay property taxes the County sold the lots at public action, resulting in excess process. Two of the owners filed timely claims for the excess proceeds, which Nye County granted. The County, however, denied Appellant's petition for the excess proceeds on the grounds that it was untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) if a former property owner wants its share of the excess proceeds from a tax sale, the former property owner must file a claim for those excess proceeds within the one-year deadline set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 361.610; and (2) because Appellant filed timely to file a claim, the money was no longer accessible to Appellant under section 361.610. View "Artmor Investments, LLC v. Nye County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of mandamus in this tort action, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the scheduling order, reopening discovery, and granting a motion to substitute.At issue in this case was the standard for substituting an expert witness after the close of discovery. Lamont Compton brought this complaint against Petitioners seeking damages for injuries received from a motor vehicle accident. Compton designated Dr. Jeffrey Gross as his expert, after which Dr. Gross pleaded guilty to conspiracy in a federal case. The district court subsequently granted Compton's motion to substitute Dr. Raimundo Leon for Dr. Gross. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court concluded that hte district court properly granted the motion, holding that Nev. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)'s good cause test, in combination with relevant local rules, provides the standard governing when a district court may modify a scheduling order. View "Torremoro v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that when a district court seeks to determine if the movant has demonstrated a prima facie case for modification of child custody under Rooney v. Rooney, 853 P.2d 123 (Nev. 1993), the court must generally consider only the properly-alleged facts in the movant's verified pleadings, declarations, or affidavits and may not consider alleged facts or offers of proof provided by the nonmoving party.Despite announcing the above general rule, the Supreme Court also announced an exception that a district court may look to the nonmovant's evidentiary support when it "conclusively establishes" the falsity of the movant's allegations. The Court's opinion further reiterated that a movant must first show the district court with specific, properly-alleged facts that his or her motion to modify child custody is potentially meritorious on its face before courts will decide a case fully upon its merits. The Court then held that because the movant's declarations in this case established a prima facie case for modification, the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Myers v. Haskins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question of law by holding that a plaintiff is not damaged for purposes of a common-law fraudulent concealment claim or a Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.600 consumer fraud claim when the plaintiff receives the true value of the good or service purchased.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court to determine whether a plaintiff has suffered damages for purposes of common-law fraudulent concealment and statutory consumer fraud claims if the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff to purchase a service or product the Plaintiff would not otherwise have purchased even if the value of that service or product was at least equal to what the plaintiff paid. The Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff who receives the true value of the services or goods purchased has not suffered damages under Nev. Rev. Stat. 41.600 or under theories of common-law fraudulent concealment. View "Leigh-Pink v. Rio Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Respondent was conclusively presumed to be the child's legal father based on positive DNA test results and that his status as such gave him rights incident to a parent-child relationship, holding that there was no error.After determining that Respondent was the biological father of the child at issue the court entered a child custody decision awarding Respondent joint physical custody with the child's mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly interpreted and applied the Nevada Parentage Act (NPA), Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 126, in concluding that Respondent was conclusively presumed to be the child's legal father based on the DNA test results; and (2) the district court's order establishing joint physical custody comported and the evidence and the preferences set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 125C. View "Martinez v. Avila, Jr." 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 affirmed the order of the district court rejecting Appellant's complaint challenging an initiative petition that would, if approved by voters, add two sections to Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution, holding that the district court properly denied relief.The initiative petition proposed two changes - open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections for specified officeholders. The district court rejected Appellant's complaint challenging the initiative petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even though the initiative petition proposed more than one change to Nevada law, it still met the single-subject requirement; (2) the initiative petition's description of effect was not misleading or inadequate; and (3) Appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposal required the expenditure of money without providing a funding source. View "Helton v. Nevada Voters First PAC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court order granting writs of mandamus and prohibition barring the Secretary of State from placing initiative petition questions on the ballot, holding that the district court abused its discretion in issuing a writ of prohibition.When Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske refused to honor the withdrawals of two verified initiative petitions to place questions on the ballot for the Nevada 2022 general election the sponsors of those petitions obtained writs of mandamus and prohibition to compel the Secretary to recognize to honor the withdrawals. The Secretary appealed, contending that Nev. Rev. Stat. 295.026, the statute setting forth the withdrawal procedure, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 295.026 is a permissible exercise of the legislature's power to enact statutes to facilities the people's initiative power; (2) the district court did not abuse it discretion in issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary not to act; and (3) the district court improperly issued a writ of prohibition because the act of placing matters on a ballot is not the type of action subject to prohibition. View "Cegavske v. Hollowood" on Justia Law