Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Fahd Dayani was on house arrest pending an unrelated trial when officers conducted a warrantless compliance check and found methamphetamine and heroin in his residence. Dayani was arrested and charged with two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance. On the same day, his cousin, Alina Jagshi, made statements to the police indicating that the drugs belonged to her. Dayani's counsel informed the district attorney's office about Jagshi's confession, which was recorded on an officer's body-worn camera. However, the State did not present this video to the grand jury, which subsequently indicted Dayani.Dayani filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the State violated NRS 172.145(2) by not presenting exculpatory evidence, including the video of Jagshi's confession and evidence of a second bathroom in his residence. The Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada construed the motion as a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied it as untimely under NRS 34.700(1)(a)'s 21-day deadline. Dayani then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition with the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that his motion was improperly construed and should have been considered on its merits.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that challenges alleging violations of NRS 172.145(2) may be properly brought via a motion to dismiss and are not confined by the 21-day time limit for pretrial habeas petitions. The court concluded that the district court had a duty to consider Dayani's motion on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the petition and directed the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to dismiss and to consider the motion on its merits. View "DAYANI v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA" on Justia Law

Thomas Labs, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, sued Amber Marie Dukes and her veterinary supply company for money owed on products delivered. During the litigation, Dukes died, and her counsel filed a notice of death but did not serve any nonparty successors or representatives. Thomas Labs moved to substitute Dukes' trust and trustee, Jason Hilliard, as parties, which the district court granted. Later, Dukes' will was filed in probate court, appointing her brother, Lynn Hill, as personal representative. Dukes' counsel then moved to dismiss the case, arguing that neither Hilliard nor the trust were proper representatives.The Eighth Judicial District Court dismissed the claims against Dukes, concluding that the 180-day deadline for substitution under NRCP 25(a) had passed. The court found that service of the notice of death on the parties alone triggered the deadline, even though no court-appointed executor or administrator existed when the notice was filed. The district court also denied Thomas Labs' motion to substitute a special administrator, Shara Berry, as untimely.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and clarified that under NRCP 25(a), when a decedent's attorney files a notice of death, they must serve the notice on nonparty successors or representatives to start the 180-day deadline for substitution. The court also noted that NRS 7.075 requires the decedent's attorney to file a motion to substitute a proper party within 90 days of the client's death. The Supreme Court found that the 180-day deadline never started because Dukes' counsel failed to serve the nonparty successors or representatives. Consequently, the district court's dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for the substitution of a special administrator for Dukes. View "THOMAS LABS, LLC VS. DUKES" on Justia Law

A six-year-old child, Z.K., was removed from the custody of Yumila Cardenas-Garcia due to unlivable conditions in her home. Cardenas-Garcia was charged with felony child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. She pleaded no contest at the custody hearing, and Z.K. remained in protective custody. In a separate criminal case, she pleaded guilty to the felony as part of a plea agreement, which allowed her to withdraw the felony plea after completing probation and instead plead guilty to a misdemeanor.The Eighth Judicial District Court held an evidentiary hearing to determine if Cardenas-Garcia had rebutted the statutory presumption against reunification under NRS 432B.555, which applies to parents convicted of felony child abuse. The court found she had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Z.K. would not be harmed by reunification. After completing probation and withdrawing her felony plea, Cardenas-Garcia again sought a determination on the presumption's applicability. The district court maintained that the presumption still applied because she had not rebutted it at the prior hearing.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that NRS 432B.555 applies to anyone who has ever been convicted of felony child abuse, regardless of the legal status of that conviction. The court emphasized that the statute's use of the word "ever" means it applies even if the conviction was later voided. The court concluded that the presumption against reunification remains unless the parent can prove by clear and convincing evidence that no harm will come to the child. The petition was denied, affirming the district court's application of the statutory presumption. View "CARDENAS-GARCIA VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA" on Justia Law

Retailers House of CB USA, LLC, and Chinese Laundry Lifestyle, LLC, leased commercial space at the Miracle Mile Shops, operated by PHWLV, LLC, which also runs the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino. On July 8, 2017, a fire-suppression pipe burst, causing significant water damage to the retailers' stores and inventory. The retailers sued PHWLV for negligence in maintaining the fire-suppression system.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted partial summary judgment in favor of the retailers on the elements of duty and breach, concluding that PHWLV had a duty to prevent items on its property from damaging others' property and had breached this duty. The case proceeded to a jury trial on causation and damages, resulting in a verdict awarding House of CB $3,133,755.56 and Chinese Laundry $411,581.41. The district court denied PHWLV's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the jury verdict, also awarding attorney fees and prejudgment interest to House of CB.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its formulation of PHWLV's duty. The appropriate standard of care was the duty to use reasonable care in servicing and inspecting the fire-suppression system and responding to issues arising from failures within the system. The court reversed the district court's judgment on the jury verdict, vacated the post-judgment orders awarding attorney fees and prejudgment interest, and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also denied PHWLV's request to reassign the case to a different judicial department. View "PHWLV, LLC VS. HOUSE OF CB USA, LLC" on Justia Law

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