Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of trafficking in a controlled substance. During a break in deliberations, two jurors individually conducted experiments testing the parties’ theories of the case. The next morning, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict. Defendant filed a motion to declare a mistrial and order a new trial due to juror misconduct. The district court denied the motion, concluding that there was no reasonable probability that the verdict was affected by the two jurors’ independent experiments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for a new trial because (1) the juror misconduct in this case was prejudicial, and (2) the trial court’s failure to give a jury instruction prohibiting jurors from conducting independent investigations or experiments constituted a reversible error. Remanded. View "Bowman v. State" on Justia Law

The Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) to the Nevada Constitution guarantees that employees be paid a specific minimum wage and gives an employee the right to bring an action against his employer to remedy any violation of the MWA. The MWA, however, does not specify a statute of limitations for the right of action it establishes. At issue in this case was whether the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.260 or the four-year statute of limitations in Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.220 applies to claims asserted under the MWA. Here, Appellant filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Respondent failed to pay her and other similarly situated employees the minimum wage required by the MWA. Citing the two-year statute of limitations in Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.260, Respondent sought judgment in its favor on claims for damages that were more than two years old when Appellant filed suit. The district court applied section 608.260 to Appellant’s claims and dismissed the claims after concluding that MWA claims are closely analogous to those provided for in Chapter 608. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the MWA is most closely analogous to section 608.260 and that applying section 608.260’s limitations period is consistent with Nevada minimum wage law. View "Perry v. Terrible Herbst, Inc." on Justia Law

Under the Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) to the Nevada Constitution, if an employer provides health benefits, it may pay its employees a lower minimum wage than if no such health benefits are provided. The MWA also requires that health benefit premiums be capped at ten percent of the employee’s gross taxable income from the employer. The employees in these consolidated cases argued that employers must actually enroll employees in health benefit plans to be eligible to pay the lower-tier minimum wage and that the ten-percent cap does not include tips in its calculation of taxable income. The Supreme Court held (1) an employer need only offer a qualifying health plan to pay the lower wage; and (2) tips are not included in the calculation of taxable income. View "MDC Restaurants, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

In Thomas v. Nevada Yellow Cab Corp., published in 2014, the Supreme Court held that the Minimum Wage Amendment to the Nevada Constitution, enacted in 2006, impliedly repealed Nev. Rev. Stat. 608.250(2)(e)’s exemption of taxicab drivers from minimum wage requirements. In two separate cases, taxicab drivers filed class actions against several taxicab companies seeking unpaid taxicab driver wages dating back to the effective date of the Amendment. The taxicab companies moved to dismiss the complaints, asserting that Thomas applied prospectively, not retroactively. Thereafter, the taxicab companies filed writ petitions arguing that Thomas should apply only prospectively. The Supreme Court consolidated the writ petitions for disposition denied the petitions, holding that section 608.250(2)(e) was repealed when the Amendment became effective rather than from the date Thomas was published. View "Nevada Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law

In 2002, Defendant was cited in Utah for driving under the influence of alcohol. The offense was a third-degree felony under Utah law. In 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense. In 2013, Defendant was arrested in Nevada for suspicion of driving under the influence. The State subsequently charged Defendant with felony DUI because of her 2004 Utah felony conviction. The district court adjudicated the offense as a category B felony, determining that Defendant’s 2004 felony DUI conviction in Utah was a violation involving “the same or similar conduct” as Nevada’s felony DUI statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Utah’s DUI laws contain a longer recidivism window but punish the same or similar conduct as Nevada’s DUI laws, and therefore, the district court correctly adjudicated Defendant’s instant offense as a felony; and (2) Defendant’s prosecutorial misconduct claims were without merit. View "Sindelar v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant opened three business accounts at Respondent Wells Fargo Bank. Respondent later unilaterally closed the three accounts, stating that the reason for the closure was because Appellant had been involved in a criminal activity. Appellant filed a complaint alleging defamation, false light, and declaratory relief. Appellant then filed a motion to compel Respondent to produce documents regarding the closure of her accounts, as well as the risk assessment processes and analysis for closing these accounts. The discovery commissioner decided that Respondent was not required to provide the requested records under the Bank Secrecy Act. The district court affirmed the commissioner’s report and recommendations but ordered Respondent to provide a privilege log concerning the subject matter at issue. After Respondent submitted a privilege log, the discovery commissioner recommended that the documents be deemed confidential. The district court affirmed and adopted the report and recommendations. Appellant’s cause of action for declaratory relief was ultimately dismissed by the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the discovery commissioner and the district court did not err in concluding that the documents at issue were protected by the Suspicious Activity Report privilege under the Bank Secrecy Act. View "Johnson v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

In the underlying district court action, Dawnette Davidson filed a motion with the family division of the district court to enforce a term of a decree of divorce from her ex-husband, Christopher Davidson. The term at issue required Christopher to pay Dawnette one-half of the equity in the marital home in exchange for Dawnette quitclaiming the residence to Christopher. Dawnette commenced this action more than six years after she delivered the quitclaim deed. The district court denied Dawnette’s motion, concluding that Dawnette’s action was untimely because an action to enforce a decree of divorce must be commenced within six years pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 11.190(1)(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the accrual time for the limitations period in an action on a divorce decree commences when there is evidence of indebtedness, which in this case occurred when Dawnette delivered the quitclaim deed to Christopher; and (2) therefore, Dawnette’s claim was time-barred. View "Davidson v. Davidson" on Justia Law

Judgment creditor Far West Industries filed suit against Michael Mona, who, together with Rhonda Mona, was a co-trustee of a family trust. A California court found that Michael committed fraud and awarded Far West a $17.8 million judgment against Michael. Far West domesticated the California judgment in Nevada against Michael and the family trust. The Nevada district court requested to examine Rhonda and ordered the Monas to produce some of Rhonda’s personal financial documents. When the Monas did not produce the documents the district court sanctioned them pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 37 and concluded that the funds on Rhonda’s three bank accounts were subject to execution by Far West pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 21.320 to partially satisfy the judgment. The Supreme Court vacated the post-judgment sanctions order, holding that the district court erred in (1) ordering Rhonda to produce documents and appear for an examination regarding her personal finances without Far West proceeding against Rhonda in her individual capacity or without the court clerk issuing a subpoena and Far West serving the subpoena on Rhonda; and (2) ordering Rhonda’s personal bank accounts to be executed upon pursuant to rule 37 and section 21.320 and to be applied to partially satisfy the judgment. View "Mona v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

The Education Savings Account (ESA) program allows public funds to be transferred from the State Distributive School Account (DSA) into private education savings accounts maintained for the benefit of school-aged children to pay for non-public educational services and expenses. Two complaints were brought challenging the ESA program as violating several provisions of the Education Article in the Nevada Constitution. The district court dismissed one complaint after rejecting the constitutional claims. In the other case, the district court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that one of the constitutional challenges had merit. The Supreme Court resolved the appeals together in this opinion and affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court orders in both cases, holding (1) the ESA program is not contrary to the legislature’s constitutional duty to provide for a uniform system of common schools and does not violate Article 11, Section 10 of the Nevada Constitution; but (2) the use of money appropriated for K-12 public education to instead fund education savings accounts undermines the constitutional mandates to fund public education. Remanded for the entry of a final declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction enjoining the use of any money appropriated for K-12 public education in the DSA to instead fund the education savings accounts. View "Schwartz v. Lopez" on Justia Law

The district court entered a divorce decree granting Diane Mizrachi and Eli Mizrachi joint legal and physical custody of their minor child. The decree provided that Eli would have the child for the “Jewish holidays” every year. Diane subsequently filed a motion to clarify the decree as to the holiday parenting time schedule. After a hearing, the district court concluded that there was not a clear understanding between the parties at the time of an agreement regarding holiday parenting time and then granted Diane’s request to clarify the meaning of the term the "Jewish holidays” as used in the divorce decree. Eli appealed, arguing that, by interpreting the term “Jewish holidays” in the manner that it did, the district court in essence modified the divorce decree without considering whether the modification was in the child’s best interest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court clarified, rather than modified, the parties’ divorce decree; and (2) while it was proper for the court to clarify the decree, the court did not apply the proper procedure in doing so. Remanded. View "Mizrachi v. Mizrachi" on Justia Law