Christopher Lund is Senior Counsel in Tyson & Mendes’ Las Vegas office. His areas of practice include employment law, personal injury, general liability, commercial litigation, and representing homeowner’s associations. Mr. Lund has litigation experience representing individuals and businesses in both Nevada and Utah state and federal district courts, as well as the Utah Court of Appeals.
Mr. Lund has successfully resolved cases involving wrongful termination of employment, sexual harassment claims, personal injury, land disputes, and breach of contract claims. Mr. Lund has briefed and successfully argued multiple cases before the Utah Court of Appeals, including a breach of fiduciary duty claim and a case involving wrongful termination in violation of an implied employment contract.
Mr. Lund earned his J.D. from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law in 2011 and two B.A.s from the University of Alaska Anchorage in Political Science and Russian Language in 2004. Mr. Lund is licensed to practice law in Nevada and Utah.
In his free time, Mr. Lund enjoys spending time with his wife and three children. He also enjoys running, camping, video editing, and sampling all different types of food.
a recent ruling out of Nevada involving a case in which a plaintiff alleged bad faith, a judge opined a bad faith allegation did not survive Rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny. Rule 12(b)(6) pertains to a pre-trial motion for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In Sahinov v. Geico Advantage Ins. Co., the court deemed it “difficult for the court to sufficiently analyze whether one party was acting in bad faith” based on the details provided.
In a recent opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision to preclude defendant APCO Construction, Inc. (“APCO”) from raising an affirmative defense at trial, despite APCO raising this defense in its Answer. In 2007, APCO was a general contractor on a Las Vegas construction project, and plaintiff Zitting Brothers Construction, Inc. (“Zitting”) was a subcontractor. The construction project was owned and commissioned by Gemstone Development West, Inc. (“Gemstone”). However, Gemstone shut the project down in December 2008.
James Droge, et al. v. AAAA Two Star Towing, Inc., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (Nev. App., June 18, 2020).
One of the favorite subjects found on reality TV is the repossession of cars, boats, and airplanes from individuals who defaulted on their loans to the bank. Watching a desperate and screaming debtor throw himself onto the hood of a car as it is being loaded onto a tow truck makes for great television. Often, in these shows, the employee of the repossession company or “repo company” is heard explaining to the delinquent debtor his company has the right under self-help laws and the loan…
145 East Harmon II Trust v. The Residences at MGM Grand-Tower A Owners’ Association, No. 75920, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (April 2, 2020). Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court tackled a question of first impression for the state: whether a defendant may be considered the prevailing party when a plaintiff voluntarily…
Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court published an opinion on an issue of first impression for the court. In Republican Attorneys Gen. Ass’n v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t (hereinafter referred to as “RAGA v. LVMPD”), the court considered the public’s access to police body camera footage involving juveniles.
Pardee Homes of Nevada v. James Wofram, et al.
The Nevada Supreme Court recently reconfirmed Nevada’s adherence to the American Rule of attorney fees (“American Rule”). The American Rule provides that “attorney fees may not be awarded absent a statute, rule, or contract authorizing such award.” See Thornas v. City of N. Las Vegas, 122 Nev. 82, 90, 127 P.3d 1057, 1063 (2006). For example, written contracts often state a prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees in the event a lawsuit is…
The Nevada Supreme Court and Nevada Court of Appeals each released opinions recently that dealt with failing to cure defaults in commercial contracts. In Rose v. Treasure Island, the Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression for Nevada, namely, “when a written lease is otherwise silent, whether the allegedly defaulting party is entitled to ‘strict’ or merely ‘substantial’ compliance with the notice requirements set…
Pope v. Fellhauer, No. 74428 (Nev. March 21, 2019) (unpublished).
In the last 3 years, the Nevada Supreme Court issued multiple decisions related to Nevada’s anti-SLAPP law and how the law should be applied in specific cases. SLAPP is a term that stands for “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” The term denotes “a meritless lawsuit that a plaintiff initiates to chill a defendant’s freedom of speech and right to petition under the First Amendment.”
Jake Lee v. Soon Yi Lee, 2019 WL 851994 (Nev. App. Feb. 19, 2019) (unpublished).
For most civil cases in Nevada, the parties have the option of having either a jury trial or bench trial. There are strategic reasons for why a plaintiff or defendant might choose a jury trial over a bench trial, and vice versa. For example, plaintiffs in personal injury cases will almost always demand a jury because jurors are more likely to award a larger sum in damages than a judge in a bench trial. Conversely, in some highly technical civil cases, a plaintiff may prefer a judge to render a decision rather than a jury, where the plaintiff’s focus or desired outcome is not necessarily on damages.
Last month the federal district court of Nevada granted United States Liability Insurance Company (USLI) summary judgment in an action filed against USLI for bad faith denial of a claim. Tyson & Mendes represented USLI in this case. The lawsuit centered around USLI’s denial of coverage for damage to the claimant’s property based on exclusionary language found in the insurance policy.