DSC_0746A review of last two months of NV Supreme Court civil decisions is on the Dec. 9 Bench-Bar meeting agenda including: Dr. Horton v. Betsinger, 130 Nev.Ad.Op. 84 (October 16, 2014)(6-0): On remand from NV Supreme Court, NRS 42.005(3) requires the 2nd jury to reassess whether punitive damages are warranted before it determines the amount to be awarded. That is, NRS 42.005(3) requires fact-finder first to determine whether punitive damages are justified (whether there is clear and convincing evidence of defendant’s oppression, fraud or malice) and then determine the amount of damages to award.

Oxbow Construction v. District Court, 130 Nev.Ad.Op. 86 (October 16, 2014)(7-0): District court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by failing to perform a NRCP 23 class action analysis, determining previously occupied units in a common-interest community do not qualify for NRS Chapter 40 remedies, and allowing claims seeking NRS Chapter 40 remedies to proceed for alleged constructional defects in limited common elements assigned to multiple units in a building containing at least 1 “new” residence. NV Supreme Court did not broaden previous Westpark definition, but noted appurtenances of “new” residence need not be “new” in order for claimant to seek NRS Chapter 40 remedies for alleged CDs to appurtenances.

Terry v. Sapphire Gentlemen’s Club, 130 Nev.Ad.Op. 87 (October 30, 2014)(7-0): Performers are Sapphire’s employments within the meaning of NRS 608.010 and thus are entitled to minimum wages guaranteed by NRS Chapter 608.

FDIC v. Rhodes, 130 Nev.Ad.Op. 88 (October 30, 2014)(4-3): Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) extends time period for FDIC, in its capacity as failed institution’s conservator or receiver to bring a contract claim that has otherwise been barred by state statutory time limitations. The federal extender statute pre-empts NRS 40.455(1)’s 6-month time limitation.

Valdez v. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc., 130 Nev.Ad.Op. 89 (November 6, 2014)(3-0): One must take an appeal from an order finally resolving severed claims, even if unsevered claims remain pending. Procedurally, here, claims against one defendant were severed from the rest of the claims against other defendants and thereafter resolved. Instead of appealing from the order resolving the severed claims, plaintiff (appellant) waited to appeal from the order finally resolving the unsevered claims before challenging interlocutory orders regarding the one defendant.

State of NV Dept. of Business and Industry, Financial Institutions Division v. Check City Partnership, 130 Nev.Ad.Op. 90 (November 13, 2014)(7-0): NRS 604A.425 limits the amount of a deferred deposit loan to 25% of borrower’s expected gross monthly income. That cap includes both the principal borrowed and any interest or fees changed.

The judicial Website will also be discusssed along with any other subjects attorneys bring up for discussion.