Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent supplied steel for projects on six properties. Respondent was not fully paid for the steel delivered to the properties, and consequently, Respondent perfected mechanics’ liens on the six properties. Respondent then filed a complaint for foreclosure against each property. Thereafter, surety bonds were posted and recorded for four properties. Respondent then amended its complaint to dismiss its lien foreclosure claims against those four properties, replacing them with claims against the sureties and principles on the surety bonds. The district court concluded that Respondent established liens on the six properties. The district court ordered the sale of all six properties without demonstrating that each surety bond was insufficient to pay the sum due on its respective property. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a materialman has a lien upon a property and any improvements thereon for which he supplied materials in the amount of the unpaid balance due for those materials; (2) in this case, Respondent established a materialman’s lien on each of the six properties for the unpaid balance due on the steel delivered; and (3) the district court erred by ordering the sale of all six properties. View "Simmons Self-Storage Partners v. Rib Roof, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant obtained a home loan from IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac F.S.B.) secured by a promissory note and deed of trust. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) was the legal beneficiary of the deed of trust. Appellant’s loan was later sold to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. IndyMac F.S.B.’s and Deutsche Bank’s obligations were listed in a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). In 2012, Appellant elected to participate in Nevada’s foreclosure medication program (FMP) with IndyMac Mortgage Services (IndyMac), Deutsche Bank’s loan servicer. The mediation concluded unsuccessfully. Appellant sought judicial review, arguing that IndyMac had failed to establish that Deutsche Bank owned his loan because the MERS assignment violated the PSA’s terms and was therefore void. The district court denied Appellant’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a loan assignment made in violation of a PSA is not void, but merely voidable; (2) because Appellant was neither a party to nor an intended beneficiary of the PSA, Appellant lacked standing to contest the assignment’s validity; and (3) although Respondents produced an assignment at the mediation that was executed after the PSA’s closing date, the assignment was nevertheless effective to transfer ownership of Appellant’s loan to Deutsche Bank. View "Wood v. Germann" on Justia Law

Steven Jacobs, the former chief executive officer of Sands China Ltd., filed a complaint against his former employer, alleging, among other things, breach of contract claims. Throughout discovery on the issue of whether Sands was subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada, Sands maintained that it could not disclose any documents containing personal information that are located in Macau due to restrictions within the Macau Personal Data Protection Act (MPDPA). The district court subsequently issued an order precluding Sands from raising the MPDPA as an objection or defense to disclosure of any documents. Thereafter, Jacobs moved for Nev. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions, arguing that Sands had violated the district court’s order by redacting personal data contained in its Macau-related document production based on MPDPA restrictions. The Supreme Court denied Sands’s petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus, holding (1) the mere presence of a foreign international privacy statute does not itself preclude Nevada district courts from ordering litigants to comply with Nevada discovery rules; and (2) in this case, the district court properly found that the existence of a foreign international privacy statute did not excuse Petitioners from complying with the district court’s discovery order. View "Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Steven C. Jacobs, the former chief executive officer of Sands China Ltd., filed a complaint against his former employer, alleging, among other things, that Sands breached his employment contract. At issue in this case was Jacobs’ possession of purportedly privileged documents in the form of e-mails and other communications that he gathered on the day he was terminated. The district court ordered Jacobs to turn over the copies of the documents to an independent vendor. The district court granted Jacobs’ motion for the return of the documents, concluding that Jacobs was among the “class of persons” legally entitled to view and use privileged documents that pertained to his tenure at Sands. Sands then filed this original petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the petition in part, holding (1) a corporation’s current management is the sole holder of its attorney-client privilege, and thus, Nevada law does not allow for a judicially created class of persons exception to attorney-client privilege; and (2) the district court erred in ruling that Jacobs, based solely on his former executive position with Sands, was legally allowed to use the purportedly privileged documents over Sands’s claim of privilege. View "Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Daisy Monzo gifted a condominium that she owned to an irrevocable trust for the benefit of her daughter, Charron Monzo. Daisy subsequently signed another deed transferring the condo back into her own name. Charron filed a petition seeking an order requiring Daisy to transfer the condo back to the trust. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Daisy, concluding that Daisy’s execution of the deed transferring title to the condo into the trust was based on unilateral mistakes. Charron then filed this original writ petition challenging the district court’s partial summary judgment order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding (1) a donor may obtain relief from an erroneous gift if she proves by clear and convincing evidence that her intent was mistaken and not in accord with the donative transfer; (2) remedies available to correct such mistakes depend on the nature of the unilateral mistake in question; and (3) because it was uncertain what Daisy’s donative intent was at the time of the donative transfer, genuine issues of fact remained as to whether unilateral mistakes affected Daisy’s execution of the deed transferring the condo into the trust, and therefore, partial summary judgment was improper. View "In re Irrevocable Trust Agreement of 1979" on Justia Law

The litigation privilege immunizes from civil liability communicative acts occurring in the course of judicial proceedings, even if those acts would otherwise be tortious. Nevada had long recognized this common law privilege but until this case had not yet determined whether it applies to preclude claims of legal malpractice or professional negligence based on communicative acts occurring in the course of judicial proceedings. The federal court certified to the Supreme Court the question of whether Nevada law recognizes an exception to the common law litigation privilege for legal malpractice and professional negligence actions. The Court answered the district court’s question in the affirmative, concluding that, generally, an attorney cannot assert the litigation privilege as a defense to legal malpractice and professional negligence claims. View "Greenberg Traurig, LLP v. Frias Holding Co." on Justia Law

Petitioners, a corporation and an individual, were initially represented by an attorney at a local firm in the defense of a lawsuit. Before trial was scheduled to commence, the attorney resigned his employment with the local firm. Concerned that new counsel was not sufficiently familiar with the company’s case to represent it, Petitioners retained two out-of-state attorneys who had previously handled similar cases for the company. Petitioners then filed a motion to associate the attorneys. Although the attorneys met all of Nev. Sup. Ct. R. 42’s requirements for admission to practice, the district court summarily denied the motion on grounds that granting the request would delay the imminent start of trial and because Petitioners failed to show that out-of-state counsel were better able to handle the case than their local counsel. The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to associate pro hac vice counsel and to instead enter an order granting that motion, holding that the district court’s refusal to allow Petitioners to associate pro hac vice counsel who met all the requirements for admission was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. View "Imperial Credit Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In the underlying tort action, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The district court entered judgment on the verdict, resolving all issues except for attorney fees and costs. The district court subsequently entered an order awarding Plaintiff attorney fees and costs, which Defendant did not appeal. Thereafter, the district court entered an “amended judgment” incorporating the attorney fees and costs into the original judgment. Defendant then appealed the amended judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the amended judgment was superfluous and could not be appealed because it did not in any way alter the legal rights and obligations set forth in either the original judgment or the order awarding attorney fees and costs. View "Campos-Garcia v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Landowners filed a complaint against the City of North Las Vegas for inverse condemnation and precondemnation damages. The district court awarded Landowners precondemnation damages and attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s orders with the exception of the prejudgment interest award, which the Court reversed, concluding that the district court erred in failing to calculate prejudgment interest from the date on which the resulting injury arose. The City sought rehearing of that order on the prejudgment issue and on issues concerning the statute of limitations and standing. Although rehearing was not warranted, the Court took the opportunity to clarify the relevant law, holding (1) the Court’s dispositional order properly concluded that prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date of taking, which was the first date of compensable injury; (2) the City could not raise its statute of limitations argument for the first time on rehearing, and even if it could, that defense was inapplicable to the facts of this case; and (3) rehearing was not warranted to clarify whether the City can assert a standing defense on remand. View "City of N. Las Vegas v. 5th & Centennial, LLC" on Justia Law

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada certified three questions of law to the Supreme Court regarding the mechanic’s lien priority law, specifically, the visible-commencement-of-construction aspect of the law, which states that a mechanic’s lien takes priority over other encumbrances on a property that are recorded after construction of a work of improvement visibly commences. The Supreme Court answered (1) the Court’s holding in J.E. Dunn Northwest, Inc. v. Corus Construction Venture, LLC does not preclude a trier of fact from finding that grading property for a work of improvement constitutes visible commencement of construction; (2) the contract dates and permit issuance dates are irrelevant to the visible-commencement-of-construction test, even in this case where dirt material was placed on a future project site before building permits were issued and the general contractor was hired; and (3) the Court declined to answer the third certified question because it asked the Court to make findings of fact that should be left to the bankruptcy court. View "Byrd Underground, LLC v. Angaur, LLC" on Justia Law