Nevada Judiciary

Pack vs. LaTourette
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

Hernadi vs. University Medical Center
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

Castro (Martin) vs. State
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
 
Trustees of the Operating Engineers, et. al. vs. Peel Brimley, LLP
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

Michelin North America vs. Deal
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre


Pack vs. LaTourette
Docket No. 54537
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a third-party complaint, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), in a tort action arising out of an auto accident and subsequent medical treatment.  The underlying case began in May 2006 when David Zinni, who is not a party to this appeal, was driving his vehicle when it was struck by a taxi cab driven by appellant Thomas Pack, who was employed by appellant Sun Cab, d/b/a Nellis Cab Company.  Zinni sought medical treatment from respondent Dr. Gary LaTourette for injuries suffered in the accident.  In April 2007, Zinni filed a lawsuit, but did not name Dr. LaTourette as a defendant, and did not include any allegations of medical malpractice.  During discovery, appellants discovered that Dr. LaTourette may have aggravated Zinni’s injuries by negligently treating him after the accident.  Appellants thus filed a third-party complaint against respondent, asserting claims for contribution and equitable indemnity based on respondent’s alleged medical malpractice.  The doctor filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, which the district court granted on the ground that the complaint was time-barred by “the statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims.”  On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing their third-party complaint as time-barred under NRS 41A.097(2).  Dr. LaTourette concedes that the district court erred in applying the wrong statute of limitations, but nonetheless contends that this court should affirm the dismissal for other reasons.  ISSUES:  (1) Did the district court reach the correct result in dismissing appellants' third-party complaint, because appellants failed to attach a required expert affidavit?  (2) Did the district court reach the correct result in dismissing appellants' third-party complaint, because there was no basis for the indemnity claim?  (3) Did the district court reach the correct result in dismissing appellants' third-party complaint, because there was no basis for the contribution claim?  (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)


Feliciano vs. American West Homes, Inc.
Docket No. 56012
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
This is an appeal by the owners of four homes with roofs that began leaking whenever it rained.  The appeal from a district court summary judgment in the underlying construction defect action was certified as final under NRCP 54(b).  Each of the four appellants purchased a new home from American West Homes in late 1996 or early 1997.  Within a few years, appellants began to notice problems with their homes whenever it rained.  In March 2007, appellants took the necessary steps toward filing suit against American West Homes, which moved for summary judgment on the ground that appellants’ claims were all time-barred by the 10-year statute of repose under NRS 11.203.  Finding that appellants had all failed to present any evidence that could create a question of fact as to the timeliness of their claims, the district court granted respondent’s motions.  ISSUES:  Did appellants present evidence that was sufficient to create a question of fact regarding: (1) whether American West's numerous building-code violations amounted to "willful misconduct" so as to avoid NRS 11.203's 10-year repose period, or (2) whether appellants suffered a discrete "injury" in the 10th year of the repose period so as to afford them an additional two years to file suit?  (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)


Hernadi vs. University Medical Center
Docket No. 56511
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
This is an appeal by two individuals who claimed in the underlying case that University Medical Center in Las Vegas subjected them to unsafe medical practices by reusing single-use vials of Lidocaine on multiple patients.  Elizabeth Hernadi and Aaron Cromer are appealing a district court order granting summary judgment in a medical malpractice action and an order of dismissal in a products liability action. Hernadi and Cromer were patients at University Medical Center (UMC) where Lidocaine was administered as part of their treatment.  They commenced legal action against UMC, their treating physicians or nurse, and two manufacturers of Lidocaine.  They alleged that by reusing single-use vials of Lidocaine on multiple patients, the defendants exposed them to blood contaminants.  All of the defendants moved for dismissal under NRCP 12(b)(5) but the district court only granted the motions to dismiss for the drug manufacturers.  Thereafter, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.  Appellants now appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment and order of dismissal.  ISSUES:  (1) Does an issue of material fact exist precluding the grant of summary judgment?  (2) Did appellants suffer compensable injuries?  (3) Should appellants be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal and violating the rules of appellate procedure?  (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)


Castro (Martin) vs. State
Docket No. 56763
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
Martin Castro is appealing his convictions for attacks on four individuals.  In the incident, Castro, along with another individual, threatened to use a shotgun against the four victims and forced  them to lie on the ground.  The victims testified Castro stole property from the two male victims and groped and assaulted the two female victims.  After the incident, Castro gave a statement to detectives while in custody in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the University Medical Center (UMC).  The district court admitted this statement over defense counsel’s objections.  At trial, a jury convicted Castro of four counts of first-degree kidnapping, two counts of robbery, three counts of sexual assault, two counts of battery with intent to commit sexual assault, four counts of open or gross lewdness, conspiracy to commit sexual assault, and attempted sexual assault, all with the use of a deadly weapon. Castro was also convicted of four counts of battery with the use of a deadly weapon and one count each of conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon.  ISSUES:  (1) Did the district court err in determining Castro voluntarily waived his Fifth Amendment rights?  (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion by declining the motion for a new trial because a prospective juror’s statement prejudiced the jury?  (3) Were the battery, sexual assault and lewdness convictions redundant, violating double jeopardy? (4) Did the district court err by refusing to dismiss the first-degree kidnapping charges, and did sufficient evidence support the convictions?  (5) Did the district court err by allowing the testimony of a Las Vegas Police Department Detective and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner?  (6) Did the district court err in providing improper jury instructions and rejecting Castro’s proposed instructions?  (7) Did the district court err by denying the motion to dismiss or impose the least severe sentence for the convictions for battery with intent to commit sexual assault with a deadly weapon?  (8) Was evidence sufficient to support the convictions for sexual assault with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted sexual assault with the use of a deadly weapon, and conspiracy to commit sexual assault?  (9) Does cumulative error warrant reversal?  (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)


Trustees of the Operating Engineers, et. al. vs. Peel Brimley, LLP
Docket No. 57462
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
This appeal seeks to resolve competing claims to a judgment in a civil action.  In the case, third party Clark & Sullivan Constructors, LLC, was involved in an interpleader action with non-party X-Treme X-Cavation, Inc. (X-Treme).  A judgment was entered in favor of X-Treme in the amount of $19,411.07.  Before the litigation was reduced to judgment, Appellants Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust, Trustees of the Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund, Trustees of the Operating Engineers Journeyman and Apprentice Training Trust, and Trustees of the Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Savings Trust (collectively, Trusts) served a writ of garnishment upon Clark & Sullivan seeking to garnish X-Treme’s interest in the litigation.  X-Treme’s counsel, respondent Peel Brimley, LLP (PB), also served a notice of attorney’s lien on X-Treme’s interest.  The Trusts and PB now assert competing claims to the judgment against Clark & Sullivan.  In the interpleader proceeding, the district court entered summary judgment for PB and held that an attorney’s lien under NRS 18.015 has priority over a general creditor’s lien.  The Trusts now appeal.  ISSUES:  (1) Did the district court err in finding that PB's attorney's lien has priority over the Trusts' writ of garnishment even though the attorney's lien was perfected after the writ of garnishment was perfected?  (2) Did the district court err in holding that NRS 18.015 does not require perfection in order to establish the priority of an attorney's lien over a perfected general creditor's claim?  (3) Did the district court err in awarding PB the interpled funds in excess of the amount claimed in the notice of attorney's lien?  (4) Did the Trusts perfect their writ of garnishment?  (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)


Michelin North America vs. Deal
Docket No. 54472
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre
This is an appeal from a district court judgment on a jury verdict in a wrongful death action, a post-judgment order denying a new trial, and a cross-appeal from a post-judgment order re-taxing costs.  In the underlying case, appellants Trystin Deal and his grandmother Gaylene Deal (the Deals) sued respondent Michelin North America, Inc., alleging various tort claims after a tire manufactured by Michelin’s predecessor, B.F. Goodrich, separated and caused the vehicle Trystin was driving to overturn.  The accident resulted in the death of Trystin’s father and grandfather.  The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Michelin.  Following entry of judgment, Michelin filed a memorandum of costs as the prevailing party.  The Deals filed a motion to re-tax costs and a motion for new trial.  The district court granted the Deals’ motion to re-tax, but denied their motion for new trial.  On appeal, the Deals argue that the district court committed multiple errors.  Michelin is cross-appealing the order granting the motion to re-tax.  ISSUES:  (1) Did the district court improperly issue two jury instructions?  (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in excluding two evidentiary matters?  (3) Did the district court improperly deny the Deals’ motion for a new trial regarding the admission of a learned treatise?  (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)