//form method="post" action="index.php" //input name="searchword" id="mod_search_searchword" maxlength="20" alt="Search" class="inputbox" size="18" value="search..." onblur="if(this.value=='') this.value='search...';" onfocus="if(this.value=='search...') this.value='';" type="text" align="absmiddle" //input type="hidden" value="search" name="task" //input type="hidden" value="com_search" name="option" //form
 
Monday, October 8, 2012 - Las Vegas - Justices Douglas, Gibbons and Parraguirre
Friday, 05 October 2012 13:15

LVRC Holdings, LLC vs. Brekka

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

Merrill vs. VREO XV, LLC

Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

 Friedman vs. Friedman c/w 56616; 57424; 57480

Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

 

LVRC Holdings, LLC vs. Brekka

Docket No. 58164

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

This is an appeal from a district court jury trial that ended in favor of a Las Vegas couple who were alleged to have wrongfully taken financial and patient information from the addiction treatment facility where the husband had worked.  Appellant LVRC Holdings, LLC operated the for-profit addiction treatment facility where respondent Christopher Brekka was employed. During his employment, Brekka e-mailed a number of documents regarding LVRC's financial and patient information to his personal e-mail account and to the personal e-mail account of his wife, respondent Carolyn Quain.  After Brekka was terminated, LVRC brought an action against respondents in federal court, asserting violations of federal computer privacy statutes and various state tort claims. The federal court adjudicated the claims based on the federal statutes in respondents' favor, but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.  LVRC then brought the unresolved tort actions to state court, alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of various fiduciary duties, tortious interference with good faith and fair dealing, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  The district court granted Brekka and Quain's motion for summary judgment regarding LVRC's claim for trade secret misappropriation by summary judgment, concluding that it was precluded by the federal court's findings of fact.  The remaining claims proceeded to jury trial, where the district court dismissed the claims against Quain at the close of evidence, and where the jury ultimately returned a verdict in Brekka's favor on all other counts.  Following trial, the district court granted Brekka and Quain's request for a partial award of attorney fees, as related to their defense of the trade secret misappropriation claim.  LVRC appealed.  Respondents cross-appealed for sanctions.  Issues:  (1) Was summary judgment on the trade secret misappropriation claim improper because res judicata did not apply? (2) Was the jury verdict supported by sufficient evidence?  (3) Was the award of attorney fees improper because LVRC's misappropriation of trade secrets claim was not brought in bad faith?  (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.)

 

 Merrill vs. VREO XV, LLC

Docket No. 57689

Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court amended judgment in a deficiency action over a loan default involving more than 2,200 acres of Arizona land that was to be developed.  The respondent and cross-appellant VREO XV, LLC sued the appellants and cross-respondents, W. Harrison Merrill, W. Harrison Merrill Trust, the WHM Copper Mountain Trust, Vanguard Properties, Inc., Resort Hotels, Inc., and WHM Copper Mountain Holdings, LLC for a deficiency judgment after a default occurred under a loan agreement made by the parties for development of the property.  At issue is the valuation of the vacant, unimproved real property located within a master plan community.  Issues: (1) Did the district court clearly err in rendering its findings regarding indebtedness and fair market value? (2) Did the district court err by failing to award interest that accrued on the deficiency judgment following the foreclosure sale?  (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.)

 

Friedman vs. Friedman consolidated with Docket Nos. 56616; 57424; 57480

Docket No. 56265

Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Douglas/Gibbons/Parraguirre

These are consolidated appeals from district court orders in an ongoing contested divorce case. The district court granted summary judgment and issued an order denying a NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside portions of the divorce decree, and a post-divorce decree order awarding fees.  On March 26, 2009, a district court entered a divorce decree, terminating the marriage of appellant/cross-respondent David Friedman and respondent/cross-appellant Abbie Friedman. By the next month, David became concerned that Abbie was not complying with certain provisions of the divorce decree relating to the division of the couples' property and assets.  As a result, David filed his first motion for an order to show cause claiming Abbie violated the divorce decree on April 22, 2009.  David later filed two supplements to his first motion for an order to show cause.  The district court then set an evidentiary hearing on David's first motion and supplements. In the meantime, Abbie filed a motion for summary judgment on David's claim that Abbie violated the provision of the divorce decree's concerning community expenditures from the "cushion account."  David opposed Abbie's motion for summary judgment and also filed a countermotion for summary judgment, or alternatively, a motion to set aside the divorce decree pursuant to NRCP 60(b).  Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Abbie and awarded Abbie $2,500 in attorney fees and costs.  After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Abbie, David filed a second motion for an order to show cause, alleging Abbie violated additional provisions of the divorce decree.  The district court held a hearing on David's second motion for an order to show prior to the evidentiary hearing on David's first motion.  At the hearing on David's second motion, the district court determined that Abbie had not willfully or deliberately violated any provisions of the divorce decree, and thus, could not be held in contempt.  The district court then held a three-day evidentiary hearing on David's first motion for an order to show cause.  At the conclusion of this hearing, the district court found that Abbie had breached one provision of the divorce decree, but also found that Abbie's breach had not been willful or deliberate.  Thus, a finding of contempt was inappropriate.  Based on these findings, the district court awarded $200,000 in attorney fees and costs to Abbie and $50,000 in attorney fees and costs to David.  Issues: (1) Did the district court err by granting summary judgment in favor Abbie on the "cushion account" issue?  (2) Was the award attorney fees to Abbie based on the summary judgment order proper?  (3) Did the district court properly deny David's NRCP 60(b) motion?  (4) Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying David's first motion for an order to show cause?  (5) Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying David's second motion for an order to show cause?  (6) Was it proper to award attorney fees to both David and Abbie based on the order resolving David's first motion for an order to show cause?  (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)
 

The official site language is English