Nevada Judiciary

RB Properties, Inc. vs. Clark Co.
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Saitta/Parraguirre
 
State, Department of Business & Industry vs. Nev. Assoc. Services, Inc.
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

International Fidelity Insurance Co. vs. District Court (State)
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
 

RB Properties, Inc. vs. Clark Co.
Docket No. 57003
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Saitta/Parraguirre
This case involves a plan to develop resort properties in Laughlin that failed after the Clark County Commission changed the definition of a resort hotel. Appellants RB Properties, Inc. and South Pointe Properties, Inc. (RB Properties) planned to develop multiple resort hotels with casinos on land that they owned in Laughlin. To begin development, RB Properties invested significantly in improvements to the land and obtained approval for the necessary zone change.  However, RB Properties never filed applications for certain land use approvals or for a gaming license, which the Clark County Code requires in order to establish a casino.  In 1998, the definition of a resort hotel was changed in the Clark County Code.  The new definition prevented RB Properties from proceeding with its development project as planned.  RB Properties sued respondents Clark County and its Board of Commissioners (Clark County), alleging that the 1998 amendment constituted a regulatory taking.  The district court granted Clark County summary judgment because RB Properties failed to apply for design review approval, a conditional use permit, or a gaming license.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court err by granting summary judgment to Clark County based on the takings claim not being ripe?  (2) Did the district court err by granting summary judgment to Clark County based on RB Properties not having a constitutionally protected property right to gaming?  (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 of Nevada; Department of Business & Industry vs. Nev. Assoc. Services, Inc.
Docket No. 57470
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
This is an appeal from a district court order granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of regulations concerning collection agencies involved in collecting assessments owed by homeowners.  The injunction prohibited appellants State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, the Financial Institutions Division, and its Commissioner, George E. Burns, (collectively, the FID) from regulating the collection activities of respondents Nevada Association Services, Inc., RMI Management, LLC, and Angius & Terry Collections, Inc. (collectively, NAS).  The FID is responsible for regulating the collection practices of collection agencies in the state of Nevada.  The statutes regulating collection agencies are found in NRS Chapter 649, which provides that the FID has the authority to issue advisory opinions.  NAS filed its complaint requesting a declaratory judgment and filed a separate motion for a preliminary injunction following an advisory opinion issued by the FID.  NAS contends that the FID lacked jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions interpreting statutory language found in NRS Chapter 116, which deals with common-interest communities.  Common-interest communities often employ community managers or other collection agencies to assist them with collecting assessments owed by homeowners.  Because collection agencies are generally regulated by the FID, the advisory opinion issued not only interpreted its own regulations, NRS Chapter 649, but also interpreted the Real Estate Division’s chapter, NRS Chapter 116.  In issuing its advisory opinion, the FID also stated that it would immediately enforce the declaratory order contained in the advisory opinion.  Fearing potential litigation under the advisory opinion, NAS filed a motion for the preliminary injunction that is the subject of this case.  The district court granted a temporary restraining order and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the FID from enforcing its advisory opinion.  The FID now appeals the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction.  ISSUES:  (1) Did the district court err in its determination that NAS had a likelihood of success on the merits in its petition for preliminary injunction because the FID lacked jurisdiction to issue the advisory opinion?  (2) Did the district court err in finding that NAS would suffer irreparable harm, and thus err in issuing the preliminary injunction?  (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)


International Fidelity Insurance Co. vs. District Court (State)
Docket No. 58252
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a surety insurer’s motion to exonerate certain bail bonds.  In this case, a bail agent appointed by the surety posted bail for a defendant that was charged with six offenses.  The agent used three separate bonds, each of which covered two charges.  Two of the three bonds were posted in amounts exceeding the amounts authorized by their attached powers of attorney.  When the defendant failed to appear for a hearing, the district court issued notices of intent to forfeit the bonds.  The district court denied the surety’s motion to exonerate the bonds, but did exonerate the portions of the two bonds that exceeded the amounts specified by their respective powers.  ISSUES: (1) Is mandamus the appropriate remedy?  (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion by allowing single bonds and their accompanying powers of attorney to post bail for multiple counts, thereby improperly denying the surety’s motion to exonerate the bonds?  (3) Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying the surety’s motion to exonerate two bonds when the amounts of bail listed exceeded the maximum amounts authorized by their accompanying powers of attorney?  (4) Should this court clarify Nevada law regarding the “stacking” of bail bonds?  (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)