Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court denied the petition filed by NuVeda, LLC for a writ of prohibition and/or mandamus asking the Supreme Court to disqualify Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez from presiding over a contempt hearing and to order the Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court to randomly reassign that hearing to another judge, holding that NuVeda was not entitled to relief.In this business dispute, NuVeda moved for a change of judge thirty-seven days after the court set a date for a trial on NuVeda's alleged contempt. The district court denied the motion as untimely. NuVeda petitioned for extraordinary writ relief. The Supreme Court denied the relief, holding (1) motions for a change of judge under Nev. Rev. Stat. 22.030(3) must be made with reasonable promptness under the circumstances; and (2) the district court did not erroneously determine that the motion in this case was untimely. View "NuVeda, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of TitleMax of Nevada, Inc. and declaring that TitleMax's practice of "refinancing" did not violate either Nev. Rev. Stat. 604A.5074 or Nev. Rev. Stat. 604A.065, holding that the court erred in part.In 2018, the Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Financial Institutions Division (FID) issued several Records of Examination stating that TitleMax's "refinances" were actually "extensions" that violated the extension provision in section 604A.5074(3)(c) and that TitleMax had underwritten loans that exceeded the fair market value of the securing vehicle. TitleMax sued, asking the district court to declare that refinancing a title loan does not amount to a prohibited extension. The district court granted summary judgment for TitleMax. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the extension prohibition on 210-day title loans includes refinances as a species of extension based on the plain language of section 604A.065; and (2) section 604A.5076(1) refers only to the principal amount of the loan. View "State, Department of Business & Industry v. TitleMax of Nevada, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint alleging discrimination based on age and sex, holding that Appellant's complaint was untimely filed.Following Respondent's termination of Appellant, Appellant sent a letter of inquiry to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and filed a charge of discrimination. After the limitation period for Appellant's potential claims against Respondent expired the Legislature amended Nev. Rev. Stat. 613.430, providing employees an additional ninety days to file a claim after receiving a letter giving them the right to sue. Appellant subsequently filed this complaint, alleging discrimination. The district court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss, finding that Appellant's claims expired under the former version of Nev. Rev. Stat. 613.430 and that the Legislature's amendments to that statute did not revive the claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly determined that the amendment did not revive Appellant's untimely claims; and (2) Appellant failed to establish the requirements for equitable tolling. View "Salloum v. Boyd Gaming Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered during a warrantless inventory search of his vehicle, holding that the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement of the United States and Nevada Constitutions applied in this case.Following a lawful stop and arrest of Defendant, a police officer performed a warrantless inventory search of Defendant's vehicle that produced no formal inventory. The officer, however, observed contraband during the search, leading to criminal charged being filed against Defendant. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, alleging that the evidence recovered from the vehicle was the product and fruit of an illegal search. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the evidence was validly discovered under the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement applied because the officer was legally present in the vehicle at the time he observed the contraband. View "Jim v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, denying Defendant's subsequent motion to dismiss the charges against him, and entering a judgment of conviction based on Defendant's guilty plea, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.Defendant entered into a guilty plea agreement based on charges of robbery and ownership or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and then suffered a mental breakdown. Defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea when he regained competency, alleging a violation of his right to a speedy trial and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied Defendant's motions and convicted him. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment below, holding that withdrawal was just and fair, and therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. View "Sunseri v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court exercising jurisdiction over the underlying fraudulent conveyance action and avoiding all of Paul Morabito's transfers to Superpumper, Inc., Sam Morabito, Snowshoe Petroleum, Inc., and Edward Bayer, individually and as trustee of the Bayuk Trust (collectively, Superpumper) and awarding Paul Morabito's bankruptcy trustee (Trustee) the subject property or the value thereof, holding that the district court did not err.Paul and Consolidated Nevada Corporation entered into a settlement agreement with JH Inc., Jerry Herbst, and Berry-Hinckley Industries (collectively, the Herbsts) for $85 million and later defaulted on the agreement. After a bankruptcy court adjudicated Paul as a Chapter 7 debtor the Herbsts filed a fraudulent transfer action against Paul and Superpumper, the transferees of Paul's assets. The state district court avoided all of Morabito's transfers to Superpumper and awarded the Trustee the subject property or the value thereof. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the fraudulent conveyance action; (2) Superpumper waived its in rem jurisdiction argument; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing attorney-client communications to be admitted into evidence at trial. View "Superpumper, Inc. v. Leonard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss this defamation action, holding that Defendant's statements met the requirements for anti-SLAPP privilege and that the absolute litigation privilege applied.Plaintiff threatened to sue Defendant over a text message that he perceived as defamatory. Defendant subsequently filed a complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED) alleging that Defendant, in a certain real estate matter, had acted unethically. Plaintiff brought this tort complaint based on Defendant's NRED complaint. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the anti-SLAPP statute and absolute litigation privilege applied to protect her from liability. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant met the good faith standard under the anti-SLAPP framework; and (2) the absolute litigation privilege applied such that Plaintiff could not prevail on his claims. View "Williams v. Lazer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award in a commercial contract matter, holding that there was no error.The parties in this case were two newspapers with a lengthy contractual relationship. The parties' contract contained a provision submitting disputes arising out of the contract to binding private arbitration. A dispute arose over amounts owed under the parties' contract, and the matter was submitted to arbitration. After the arbitrator rendered an award, both parties sought to vacate portions of the award by arguing that the arbitrator's award was so egregiously wrong that the arbitrator had clearly failed to apply the contract at all. The district court confirmed the award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly found that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded his powers, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, or manifestly disregarded the law. View "News+Media Capital Group LLC v. Las Vegas Sun, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that because Nevada's wrongful termination claims do not significantly conflict with any concrete federal interest expressed by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), the LMRDA did not preempt those claims.This case concerned the termination of the employment of two plaintiffs with the Nevada Service Employees Union. Plaintiffs filed this complaint against Nevada Service Employees Union, Local 1107 and the Service Employees International Union, alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and wrongful termination. The district court granted summary judgment for the Unions, concluding that the LMRDA preempted all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the LMRDA does not preempt state law wrongful termination claims; (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of one of the unions; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a union's motion for attorney fees. View "Clark v. Service Employees International Union" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Appellant's judgment of conviction, holding that Appellant was entitled to have seventy days' credit for time served applied to his sentence in his second case.Appellant pleaded guilty in two criminal cases and was sentenced on different dates by different judges, with each sentence imposed to run concurrently. The first sentencing judge applied credit for Appellant's time served to the sentence in the first case, but the second sentencing judge declined to apply credit for time served to the sentence in the second case. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction, holding (1) where a defendant simultaneously serves time in presentence confinement for multiple cases and the resulting sentences are imposed concurrently, credit for time served must be applied to each corresponding sentence; and (2) Appellant was entitled to credit for time served applied to the sentence in his second criminal case. View "White-Hughley v. State" on Justia Law