Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Kawaharas loaned the Allisons $400,000. The Allisons executed a note to the Kawaharas in that amount secured by a deed of trust on a Reno property. The note was delivered in 2009 but was not recorded until 2011. When the Allisons’ car dealership became delinquent in taxes, the State Department of Taxation recorded certificates of tax lien against the Allisons. The lien was created and recorded in 2010. The Allisons filed for bankruptcy in 2011. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada approved the sale of the Reno property. The bankruptcy court certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court concerning the priority of the competing liens on the Reno property. The Supreme Court concluded (1) a recorded tax lien cannot be recognized as a mortgage lien, and therefore, the Department cannot claim to have recorded a mortgage lien when it filed a tax lien certificate; (2) the deed of trust had priority over a tax lien levied under Nev. Rev. Stat. 360.473; and (3) the Department’s tax lien is considered a judgment lien under section 360.473(2), and Nevada recording statutes do not protect judgment creditors against prior unrecorded conveyances. View "State, Dep't of Taxation v. Kawahara" on Justia Law

William Plise, a judgment debtor, did not attend his scheduled debtor’s examinations in the district court. Eliot Alper, the judgment creditor, sought an order to show cause why Plise should not be held in contempt of court. Before the hearing on that motion, Plise filed a bankruptcy petition. Alper participated in the bankruptcy proceeding and obtained an order from the bankruptcy court granting relief from the automatic stay and allowing the district court to conduct a hearing and enter an order with regard to Plise’s alleged criminal contempt. The district court found Plise guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to twenty-one days incarceration. The court, however, conditionally allowed Plise to avoid criminal contempt punishment. Alper filed this petition seeking a writ of prohibition arguing that the district court exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the automatic stay when it allowed him to avoid incarceration by participating in a debtor’s examination. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, concluding that the district court’s order exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s lift stay order because a contempt order that permits a judgment debtor to purge incarceration is civil, rather than criminal, in nature. View "Alper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Plaintiff injured himself while bowling at a center operated by Defendant. After the deadline passed that had been for seeking an amendment of a pleading, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 15(a) seeking to amend his theory of liability. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the motion was untimely and, furthermore, even if leave were granted, the proposed amendment would be futile “given the results of the discovery already conducted.” The district court subsequently granted summary judgment as to the theory of liability set forth in the original complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) erred by failing to independently analyze whether the proposed amendment was timely under the standards of Nev. R. Civ. P. 16(b), which requires a showing of “good cause” for missing a deadline, before considering whether it was warranted under the standards of Rule 15(a); (2) incorrectly applied the futility exception to Rule 15(a): but (3) nonetheless reached the correct conclusion under the facts of this case. View "Nutton v. Sunset Station, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant, an inmate, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Respondents, the Lovelock Correctional Center law library supervisor and an inmate library clerk, alleging that Respondents failed to mail his confidential legal mail and retaliated against him for filing a grievance. The district court dismissed Appellant’s entire complaint without prejudice based on Appellant's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act’s (PLRA) exhaustion requirement applied to Appellant’s section 1983 claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to any inmate section 1983 civil rights claims regarding prison conditions, even if the complaint is filed in state court, the district court properly applied the exhaustion requirement in this case; and (2) because Appellant’s complaint alleged federal civil rights claims and not state tort claims, the district court did not have the discretion to stay the case to allow Appellant to exhaust his administrative remedies. View "Berry v. Feil" on Justia Law

The Provincial Government of Marinduque (the Province), was a political subdivision of the Republic of the Philippines. Placer Dome Inc. (PDI), was incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, Canada. A predecessor of PDI formed Marcopper Mining Corp. to undertake mining activities in the Province. The predecessor and PDI controlled all aspects of Marcopper’s operations. During the course of the corporation’s operations, Marcopper caused significant environmental degradation and health hazards to the people living in the Province. The Province filed its complaint in a Nevada district court. Shortly thereafter, PDI and another business entity amalgamated under the laws of Ontario, Canada to form Barrick Gold Corporation. Barrick’s subsidiaries had substantial mining operations in Nevada. Barrick and PDI moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The district court found that dismissal for form non conveniens was warranted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that dismissal for forum non conveniens was proper because this case lacked any bona fide connection to the state, adequate alternative fora existed, and the burdens of litigating in Nevada outweighed any convenience to the Province. View "Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, child abuse and neglect causing substantial bodily harm, and five counts of child abuse and neglect. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by ruling that child-abuse-and-neglect counts three through seven were continuing offenses and that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the last alleged act of abuse or neglect was completed; (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s pretrial motion to sever the abuse charges from the death charges; and (3) none of the remainder of Defendant’s claims warranted dismissal. View "Rimer v. State" on Justia Law

While investigating Defendant for alleged distribution of methamphetamines, law enforcement officers obtained a warrant authorizing a wiretap to intercept communications on two different cellular telephone numbers attributed to Defendant. The wiretap resulted in the interception of telephone calls and text messages, which led to Defendant’s arrest. Defendant was charged with four drug-trafficking-related felonies. Defendant filed a motion to compel further discovery, two motions to suppress evidence obtained from the wiretap, a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle, and a motion for a Franks hearing. The district court denied the motions. Defendant pled guilty to trafficking in a controlled substance and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s judgment of conviction, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Nevada wiretap law permits the interception of Defendant’s cellular telephone calls and text messages. View "Sharpe v. State" on Justia Law

In this insurance matter, the district court entered a final judgment and a post-judgment order. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the district court. After the time for filing a petition for rehearing expired and no petition for rehearing was filed, the remittitur issued. Three days later, Appellants’ counsel filed a motion to recall the remittitur, claiming that he did not become aware of the order of affirmance due to technical difficulties created by a virus on counsel’s servers “as well as switching to a new case management system.” However, the court’s electronic record reflected that an official notice of the order of affirmance was sent to Appellants’ counsel’s electronic filing account, and an email was sent to two separate email addresses at Appellants’ counsel’s law firm. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that because Appellants’ counsel could have learned of the disposition in time to timely file a petition for rehearing, Appellants failed to demonstrate a basis on which the remittitur should be recalled. View "Fulbrook v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The State filed an abuse and neglect petition naming R.L. as a minor in need of protection and asking the court to declare R.L. a ward of the court. R.L. was under a Nev. Rev. Stat. 159 guardianship at the time the petition was filed. The petition alleged that the mental health issues of Petitioner, R.L.’s mother, adversely affected her ability to care for R.L. Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition, asserting that she could not be responsible for neglect because she had neither legal nor physical custody of R.L. The hearing master sustained the allegations in the petition, finding that Petitioner’s anxiety and depression affected her ability to provide care for R.L. and that it was in R.L.’s best interest to be adjudicated a child in need of protection. The juvenile division of the district court adopted the hearing master’s recommendation. Petitioner filed this action in mandamus seeking a writ compelling the juvenile division to dismiss the petition entered against her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even when a guardianship is in place, the child’s parents have a statutory duty to continue to care for the child, and parental responsibility for neglect may coincide with the guardianship. View "Jennifer L. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Appellants Robert and Jamie Logan sued Respondents - the owner, operator, and general manager of a hotel - for personal injuries that Robert suffered when he was shot by an employee of the hotel. Before trial, Defendants made an offer of judgment to Appellants offering $55,000 to settle Appellants’ claims. Appellants did not accept this offer. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendants. The district court awarded $71,907 in attorney fees and $24,812 in costs to Defendants, concluding that Defendants were entitled to attorney fees and costs under Nev. Rev. Stat. 17.115 and Nev. R. Civ. P. 68 because Appellants failed to improve upon Defendants’ offer of judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees or costs to Defendants under section 17.115 and Rule 68. View "Logan v. Abe" on Justia Law