Nevada Judiciary

January 11, 2012, Oral Arguments

 Turan Petroleum, Inc. vs. Luberski, Inc. C/W 56908

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

 State vs. Lloyd (Jethro)

Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

 DeBoer vs. Senior Bridges

Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

 Turan Petroleum, Inc. vs. Luberski, Inc.

Docket No. 55488 (Consolidated with 56908)

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

These are consolidated appeals from a district court order granting declaratory relief and a permanent injunction in a corporate law action involving competing boards of directors and affecting an oil and gas reserve in Kazakhstan.  The appellant board of directors (the Bektayev Board) challenges the district court’s decision that it is not the legitimately elected board of directors with authority to defend litigation against Turan Petroleum, Inc.  The appeal also challenges a post-judgment district court order denying NRCP 60(b) relief.  Respondent shareholders (the Luberski Group) filed suit against Turan Petroleum, Inc., a Nevada corporation, seeking a declaration that the Bektayev Board was not properly elected and seeking to prevent Turan from taking actions in accordance with the Bektayev Board’s directions.  Those actions could include transferring Turan’s primary asset, an oil and gas reserve in Kazakhstan, to an entity allegedly also controlled by the Bektayev Board.  Two boards of directors—the Bektayev Board and the Vanetik Board—responded on Turan’s behalf, but neither board attempted to intervene.  The district court determined that the Vanetik Board was the properly elected board and then refused to allow the Bektayev Board to further participate in the litigation.  The district court then granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the shareholders via summary judgment without opposition.  The court also refused to permit the Bektayev Board to then seek NRCP 60(b) relief, due to its earlier ruling that it was not the legitimate board.  ISSUES: (1) Was the Bektayev Board a party or a necessary party to the action that should have been joined and is now entitled to appeal?  (2) Did the district court fail to properly determine which of the two boards of directors controlled the corporation, and was the decision supported by substantial evidence?  (3) Should the district court have allowed further discovery and an evidentiary hearing?  (4) Did the failure to notify the Bektayev Board of the summary judgment hearing violate its due process rights?  (5) Did the district court abuse its discretion in impliedly refusing to dismiss or stay the Carson City action pending similar actions filed in other jurisdictions, based on forum non conveniens or comity grounds?  (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)

State vs. Lloyd (Jethro),

Docket No. 56706

Carson City – 10:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

In this case, the State is appealing a district court decision to exclude drug evidence found in a car by a drug dog following a traffic stop.  Jethro Lloyd was stopped for failing to come to a complete stop before turning right on a red light in Elko County.  The officer who stopped him requested a drug dog to come to the scene. The drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the car, and Lloyd was subsequently arrested. The district court granted Lloyd’s motion to suppress the evidence and the State appeals.  ISSUE: Did a warrantless search of respondent’s vehicle after police stopped him and a drug dog alerted to the car violate Lloyd’s Fourth Amendment rights, thereby justifying exclusion of the evidence that police officers obtained?  (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)

 DeBoer vs. Senior Bridges,

Docket No. 57107

Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Cherry/Pickering/Hardesty

This is an appeal from a Washoe County district court judgment in a tort action over the alleged financial exploitation of a woman with Alzheimer’s disease.  The case began when Gayle Savage, an adult ward, was admitted to Senior Bridges of Sparks Family Hospital after she was discovered confused and wandering in a neighbor’s backyard.  A physician at Senior Bridges determined that Savage was suffering from mild to moderate dementia as a result of Alzheimer’s disease.  The physician decided that Savage was unable to live independently and recommended that she either be placed under the care of a family member or a court-appointed guardian.  During Savage’s stay at Senior Bridges, Peggy Violet, a long-term friend, routinely visited her.  A social worker employed by Senior Bridges met with Violet to discuss Savage’s well-being.  Violet offered to care for Savage upon her discharge from Senior Bridges on the condition that Savage execute a general power of attorney designating Violet as her appointee.  Consequently, Savage executed a pre-printed power of attorney form that had been provided to her by the social worker.  A notary public employed by Senior Bridges verified the power of attorney.  Savage was discharged into the care of Violet, but Violet began to exploit Savage by misappropriating her money, real property, and other assets.  Susan DeBoer, legal guardian of Savage, filed a complaint for negligence against Senior Bridges asserting that Senior Bridges breached a duty of care by facilitating the procurement of the power of attorney.  Senior Bridges filed a motion to dismiss stating that it did not have a duty to protect Savage from financial exploitation from a third-party friend.  The district court granted Senior Bridges’ motion to dismiss.  DeBoer appeals. ISSUE: Did the district court err in determining that Senior Bridges owed no duty of care to Savage beyond the duty to provide her with competent medical care?  (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)