Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, who worked at the Clark County Government Center (CCGC), alleged injuries from exposure to toxic chemicals. They claimed that toxic chemicals were released on Union Pacific property, which later became the CCGC site. After the CCGC opened in 1995, workers began experiencing illnesses and noticed black soot accumulating in workstations and air vents. Despite these concerns, Clark County assured workers that the property was safe. Plaintiffs argued that they could not have discovered the link between their illnesses and the toxic exposure until 2020, when experts established the connection.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County dismissed the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, ruling that the discovery rule did not apply to the two-year statute of limitations under NRS 11.190(4)(e). The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred because the statute did not explicitly reference discovery-rule tolling.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the discovery rule could apply to NRS 11.190(4)(e) despite the statute's lack of explicit language. The court emphasized that fairness and justice require that a claim should not accrue until the claimant is aware or should be aware of the claim through reasonable diligence. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had raised issues of fact regarding their awareness of the cause of action and the defendants' alleged concealment of information. Additionally, the court found that the district court erred by not considering equitable tolling. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "ADKINS VS. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY" on Justia Law

Isaac Antonio Rodriguez was convicted of five counts of sexual assault of a child under the age of 14, lewdness with a child under the age of 14, and possession of visual presentation depicting sexual conduct of a person under 16 years of age. The conviction was based on his sexual relationship with a minor, A.F., from 2017 to 2019. Rodriguez appealed the conviction on three grounds: the district court's admission of text messages over his objection, alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the closing argument, and the district court's denial of his request for a jury instruction regarding the edited nature of the admitted text messages.The district court had admitted the text messages as evidence, despite Rodriguez's objections. During the trial, the State argued that gaps in time with no text messages supported the inference that Rodriguez and A.F. had indeed met in person. Rodriguez objected to this argument, but the district court overruled the objection. Rodriguez also sought a jury instruction explaining that the text messages were only a sampling of the full conversations between A.F. and him, but the district court declined to instruct the jury on the matter.The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the conviction. The court concluded that the district court properly admitted the text messages and clarified that the rule of completeness is a rule of admission, not of exclusion. The court also found that the prosecution did not commit misconduct in its closing argument. Finally, the court ruled that the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury regarding the edited nature of the text messages. View "Rodriguez v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Manuel Mariscal-Ochoa, who was convicted of sexual assault against a child under the age of 14 years and lewdness with a child under the same age. The 9-year-old victim, L.N.C., alleged four instances of abuse, claiming that Mariscal-Ochoa had penetrated her with his fingers or penis on each instance. Mariscal-Ochoa pleaded not guilty, and the case went to trial. During voir dire, a prospective juror stated that she might recognize the defendant because he may have abused her niece or nephew. The defense moved for a mistrial.The district court denied the motion for a mistrial, reasoning that the prospective juror's statements were not so prejudicial as to require disqualification of the venire. The court found that the prospective juror's statement was equivocal and vague, and any prejudice could be neutralized by a curative admonition, which the district court administered. The jury found Mariscal-Ochoa guilty of one count of sexual assault and the single charged count of lewdness. The jury acquitted Mariscal-Ochoa on the three remaining sexual assault counts.On appeal, Mariscal-Ochoa raised several issues, including the district court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial after the prospective juror’s statements, arguing that the statements so prejudiced the venire that he could not have received a fair trial. The Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing a curative admonition rather than dismissing the venire. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction. View "Mariscal-Ochoa v. State" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee Rali 2006QA5 (Deutsche Bank), the holder of the first deed of trust, and SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC (SFR), the purchaser of a property at a homeowners’ association (HOA) lien foreclosure sale. The dispute centers around whether the homeowner's partial payments to the HOA satisfied the superpriority lien, which would mean that the HOA foreclosure did not extinguish the first deed of trust.The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Deutsche Bank, finding that the homeowner's pre-foreclosure payments satisfied the superpriority lien. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada vacated and remanded the case, instructing the district court to consider the analysis in the then recently decided case 9352 Cranesbill Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On remand, the district court ruled in favor of SFR, concluding that a portion of the superpriority lien remained unsatisfied, so the HOA foreclosure extinguished Deutsche Bank’s deed of trust.The Supreme Court of Nevada disagreed with the district court's conclusion. The court held that, unless expressly authorized by the homeowner, the HOA may not allocate a payment in a way that results in a forfeiture of the first deed of trust holder’s interest and deprives the homeowner of the security on the homeowner’s mortgage. Applying this principle to the case at hand, the court found that the homeowner's partial payments to the HOA satisfied the HOA’s superpriority lien, so the foreclosure did not extinguish Deutsche Bank’s first deed of trust. Therefore, SFR took possession of the property subject to the deed of trust. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for entry of judgment for Deutsche Bank consistent with this opinion. View "Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a transaction between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sparks (RDA) and a developer. The RDA transferred property to the developer for the construction of an apartment project. In exchange, the developer agreed to maintain free public parking on the property for the next 50 years. The Labor Commissioner considered this transaction as the RDA providing a "financial incentive" worth more than $100,000 to the developer, thus requiring the developer to pay prevailing wages on the project. The Labor Commissioner assessed a penalty against the RDA for not requiring the developer to pay prevailing wages.The Labor Commissioner's decision was upheld by the district court, which led to the RDA's appeal. The RDA argued that the Labor Commissioner had neither the expertise nor the statutory authority to address a dispute arising under Nevada’s Community Redevelopment Law over the valuation of interests in real property. The RDA also contended that the Labor Commissioner's interpretation of the law was incorrect.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the lower court's decision. The court found that the Labor Commissioner's interpretation of the law was incorrect and expanded its reach. The court held that the statute does not reference "future compensation," nor does it equate its receipt with a redevelopment agency giving a developer "financial incentives [worth] more than $100,000." The court concluded that the Labor Commissioner's decision that the RDA provided a financial incentive exceeding $100,000 to the developer lacked substantial evidence and must be reversed. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the RDA’s petition for judicial review. View "The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sparks v. Nevada Labor Commissioner" on Justia Law

The case involves Somsak Limprasert, a patient diagnosed with COVID-19 and acute hypoxic respiratory failure, who was transferred to PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC, for rehabilitation and treatment. While at PAM, Limprasert, who was bedridden and unable to stand without support, was assisted by PAM's workers to rise from his bed. However, they unexpectedly let go of him while he was in a standing position, causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Limprasert filed a complaint against PAM, asserting claims for negligence and abuse of the vulnerable, and alternatively, under Nevada’s medical malpractice statutes. However, he failed to attach a supporting declaration from a medical expert to his complaint.The district court found that Limprasert’s claims were of professional negligence, requiring a supporting declaration from a medical expert. As Limprasert filed his complaint without the supporting declaration and the erratum was not filed at the same time as the complaint, the district court granted PAM’s motion to dismiss. Limprasert appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the decision, finding that the district court erred by dismissing Limprasert’s complaint. PAM petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for judicial review.The Supreme Court of Nevada determined that Limprasert’s claims were of professional negligence, requiring an affidavit under Nevada law. However, the court concluded that Limprasert’s expert declaration complied with the law, and the district court therefore erred by dismissing his complaint for noncompliance. The court reversed the dismissal of Limprasert’s professional negligence claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a medical malpractice claim filed by Saeed Gohari, acting as the guardian ad litem for Nammi Gohari, a minor. Nammi was born prematurely in 2012 and developed irreversible brain damage, which the family attributed to professional negligence by the medical staff at facilities operated by Dignity Health. The malpractice claims were filed against Dignity Health and several individuals who provided medical care to Nammi's mother, Afsaneh Amin-Akbari, over a decade after Nammi's birth, on November 30, 2022.The case was initially brought before the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under NRS 41A.097, which sets a limitation period for filing medical malpractice claims. However, Gohari argued that the complaint was still timely under NRS 41A.097(5) due to a pair of emergency directives issued by Governor Steve Sisolak during the COVID-19 pandemic, which tolled the limitations period. The district court agreed with Gohari, concluding that the directives tolled the limitations period for 122 days, making Gohari's complaint timely.The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to vacate the district court order and direct the district court to dismiss the case because Gohari's complaint was untimely under NRS 41A.097(5) and its timeliness was not preserved by the directives. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, concluding that the district court correctly applied the directives and that the law does not require dismissal of Gohari's complaint as untimely. The court found no support for Dignity Health's argument in the directives’ plain language and held that the directives tolled Gohari's limitations period for 122 days. View "Dignity Health v. District Court" on Justia Law

A child, J.B., was born while both of his parents were incarcerated for the homicide of J.B.'s older sibling. The Department of Family Services (DFS) placed J.B. with Becky and Jay Whipple, friends of J.B.'s grandmother, who were not licensed foster parents at the time. The district court affirmed this placement, designating the Whipples as J.B.'s "fictive kin," a term referring to individuals who are not blood relatives but have a significant emotional and positive relationship with the child.Months later, after J.B.'s father's paternity was established, he requested that J.B. be placed with his own father, Miles Sr., in Illinois. The district court ordered J.B.'s placement with Miles Sr., asserting that blood relatives have a legal placement preference over fictive kin. The court made no factual findings related to J.B.'s best interest.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada granted a petition challenging the district court's decision. The Supreme Court clarified that the term "fictive kin" requires an evaluation of the relationship from the perspective of both the child and the adult. The court emphasized that placement decisions must be based on a child’s best interest. The court found that the district court had erred in asserting that blood relatives have a legal placement preference over fictive kin. The court also noted that the district court had abused its discretion by proceeding with a change in J.B.'s placement when J.B.'s counsel was absent. The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order placing J.B. with Miles Sr. and ordered the case to be reassigned to a different judge for further proceedings. View "In re Matter of J.B." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over a merger between Parametric Sound Corporation and VITB Holdings, Inc. (VITBH). A group of shareholders, who later formed PAMTP, LLC, opted out of a class action settlement related to the merger and filed a separate lawsuit. They alleged that the merger diluted their equity interests and that Kenneth Potashner, a member of Parametric's board, had breached his fiduciary duties by misleading shareholders about the financial outlook of the merger. The district court granted judgment to the defendants, finding that PAMTP had failed to plead a direct claim.The district court's decision was based on the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling in a previous related case, Parametric I, which held that the shareholders' claims should be dismissed for failure to plead a direct claim. However, the court granted the shareholders leave to replead certain claims that may have been direct under a Delaware case, Gentile v. Rossette. PAMTP's complaint in the present case was based on this guidance.The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that PAMTP had indeed failed to plead a direct claim. The court noted that the Delaware Supreme Court had since overruled Gentile, holding that most equity expropriation claims are exclusively derivative. The court also found that PAMTP had not satisfied the "direct harm test" adopted in Parametric I.The court also addressed the district court's award of costs and attorney fees to the defendants. It affirmed the award of costs but reversed the award of pre-complaint costs, finding that the district court had abused its discretion. The court also reversed the district court's denial of attorney fees to the defendants, finding that they were entitled to fees under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The case was remanded for the district court to determine the amount of fees to which the defendants were entitled. View "In re Parametric Sound Corp." on Justia Law

The case revolves around an adoption dispute involving a minor child, G.P. The child's step-great-grandparents, Katherine and Michael, had agreed to temporary guardianship of G.P. after being contacted by the child's birth mother during her pregnancy. After G.P.'s birth, Katherine and Michael filed for temporary guardianship in the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County. Concurrently, G.P.'s grandparents, Angela and Randall, filed a competing petition for guardianship. The birth parents of G.P. later consented to terminate their parental rights and agreed to G.P.'s adoption by Katherine and Michael. With these consents, Katherine and Michael filed a petition for adoption in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County.The Second Judicial District Court had scheduled a hearing for the competing guardianship petitions. However, it was unaware of the pending adoption petition in the Eighth Judicial District Court. The court denied Angela and Randall's petition for temporary guardianship but set a trial date for the competing guardianship requests. A few days later, the Eighth Judicial District Court granted Katherine and Michael's adoption petition. Upon learning of the adoption, Angela and Randall moved to set aside the adoption in the Eighth Judicial District Court, alleging misrepresentation and misconduct. The court granted their motion, setting aside the adoption.The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the lower court's decision. The court clarified that a motion to set aside a judgment under NRCP 60(b) could be brought by a party to the proceeding, an entity in privity with one of the parties, or a nonparty with interests directly affected by the judgment. However, Angela and Randall, as nonparties, lacked standing to move to set aside the adoption. They were not parties in the adoption proceedings, did not have rights directly affected by the proceedings, and lacked any other statutory or constitutional basis for standing. The court concluded that the district court had abused its discretion in setting aside G.P.'s adoption. View "In re Petition of Perry" on Justia Law