Nevada Judiciary

December 16, 2011, Oral Arguments

Rueda-Denvers (Omar) vs. State
Las Vegas – 9:00 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre

Schettler vs. Ralron Capital Corp.
Las Vegas – 9:30 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre

Haley vs. District Court (Orevillo)
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre

Bullivant Houser Bailey PC vs. District Court (L.A. Pacific Center, Inc.)
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre


Rueda-Denvers (Omar) vs. State,
Docket No. 55296
Las Vegas – 9:00 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre
This is Omar Rueda-Denvers’ appeal of his conviction for his role in a bombing in a parking garage at the Luxor Hotel.  At trial, the State showed that Rueda-Denvers and his codefendant had placed a pipe bomb disguised as a coffee cup on the roof of a car belonging to a man who had been dating Rueda-Denvers’ ex-girlfriend.  A jury convicted Rueda-Denvers of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, two counts of possession of an explosive or incendiary device, and transportation or receipt of explosives for an unlawful purpose with substantial bodily harm.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court improperly prohibit Rueda-Denvers from introducing evidence that his codefendant had a history of indiscriminate bombings?  (2) Were Rueda-Denvers’ Confrontation Clause rights violated when a portion of his codefendant’s police statement was introduced into evidence?  (3) Did the district court err when it admitted evidence of Rueda-Denvers’ prior bad acts?  (4) Did the district court err when it admitted Rueda-Denvers’ voluntary police statements into evidence?  (5) Does cumulative error warrant reversal of his convictions?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)


Schettler vs. Ralron Capital Corp.,
Docket No. 56508
Las Vegas – 9:30 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre
This appeal involves a loan dispute and allegations that a failed Nevada bank improperly claimed that Vincent Schettler defaulted on the loan.  In September 2006, appellant Schettler and Silver State Bank entered into a loan agreement.  Before the loan matured, Silver State froze funds Schettler had on deposit with the bank, claiming that Schettler defaulted on the loan.  Disputing his default, Schettler stopped making further payments.  The FDIC subsequently became a receiver for Silver State and later sold Schettler’s loan to respondent RalRon Capital Corporation.  RalRon brought suit against Schettler for payment on the outstanding loan balance; Schettler responded and argued that RalRon could not enforce the loan because Silver State breached the agreement by wrongfully defaulting Schettler.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of RalRon and Schettler appeals.  ISSUES: (1) Does the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 12 U.S.C.A. section 1821, bar Schettler’s responses, thereby divesting the district court of jurisdiction to consider Schettler’s responses?  (2) Is RalRon a holder in due course under either Nevada’s Commercial Code or federal common law?  (3) Was summary judgment appropriate on RalRon’s breach of contract and breach of personal guaranty claims?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)


Haley vs. District Court (Orevillo),
Docket No. 57437
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition.  Attorneys for a minor involved in a medical malpractice case are challenging a district court order reducing attorney fees.  In the underlying case, the district court approved the compromise of a minor’s claim in a medical malpractice action but directed a different distribution of the settlement proceeds than that agreed to by the parties.  On behalf of Ashley Himel, a minor, petitioner Christopher Gellner filed a claim for wrongful death and personal injury against Dr. Joel Orevillo.  Petitioner Dale Haley acted as guardian ad litem to the minor.  When the parties reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the district court for approval under NRS 41.200, the district court refused to order distribution of proceeds because the requested attorney fees exceeded the amount of the minor’s recovery.  Ultimately, the district court ordered a redistribution of proceeds, in which it combined and reduced the fees requested by Gellner and Haley without itemizing the specific distribution among them.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court lack authority to unilaterally alter the distribution?  (2) If the district court had such authority, did the district court abuse its discretion in making the alteration it did?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)


Bullivant Houser Bailey PC vs. District Court (L.A. Pacific Center, Inc.),
Docket No. 57991
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order granting reconsideration and vacating a previous order to dismiss a complaint in a real estate transaction dispute.  Petitioner Bullivant Houser Bailey PC (BHB) represented the sellers of two properties in litigation against L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (LA Pacific).  BHB’s former clients Hotels Nevada, LLC; Inns Nevada, LLC and Louis Habash (collectively, Hotels) entered into a real estate transaction with LA Pacific for the purchase of two adjacent properties.  One year after the closing of the transaction, BHB filed a complaint and lis pendens on behalf of its client in California superior court, alleging numerous causes of action stemming from alleged fraud on the part of LA Pacific in the memorialization of the Purchase and Sale Agreement.  While litigation in California proceeded, BHB filed suit against LA Pacific in the district court in Clark County alleging similar causes of action, including an action to quiet title.  This litigation forms the factual basis for the claims asserted by LA Pacific against BHB in the underlying action.  LA Pacific brought suit against BHB in January 2010 on claims of (1) abuse of process, (2) slander of title, (3) intentional interference with contractual relationship, and (4) intentional interference with prospective advantage.  BHB then filed a special motion to dismiss pursuant to NRS 41.660 (Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute), arguing that their actions in representing their clients were protected activities and were done in good faith.  The district court granted BHB’s special motion to dismiss.  Thereafter, LA Pacific brought a motion for reconsideration in the district court.  The district court granted LA Pacific’s motion, thereby vacating the previous order granting BHB’s special motion to dismiss.  BHB now seeks a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate its order granting LA Pacific’s motion for reconsideration and directing the district court to reinstate its previous order granting BHB’s special motion to dismiss pursuant to NRS 41.660.  ISSUES:  (1) Is a writ of mandamus procedurally appropriate?  (2) Did the district court err in denying application of NRS 41.660 to this case?  (3) Did the district court err in determining that LA Pacific’s claims were not precluded by the absolute litigation privilege?  (Disclaimer: This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.  To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do)