Christopher Lund is an Associate 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.
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 March 21, 2019) (unpublished).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.
Dolores v. State Employment Security Division, 134 Nev.Adv.Op. 34, 416 P.3d 259 (Nev. 2018).
Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court tackled a question of first impression related to unemployment benefits: Does an employee voluntarily resigns when the employer gives an ultimatum, quit or be fired? The Court unanimously ruled the resignation is voluntary, precluding unemployment benefits. Of course, the Court’s decision is not as black and white as it first appears.
Fitzgerald v. Mobile Billboards, LLC, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (May 3, 2018).
Nevada has long recognized a common law privilege against prosecution for statements made during a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. This privilege protects parties and witnesses from lawsuits for defamation based on statements related to the issues in the proceedings or anticipated proceedings, even if the statements were made with malicious intent or were knowingly false. The policy reason for this is “the public interest in having people speak freely outweighs the risk individuals will occasionally abuse the privilege by making false and malicious statements.” See Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Witherspoon, 99 Nev. 56, 61, 657 P.2d 101, 104 (1983).
Aliante Master Assoc. v. Prem Deferred Trust, No. 71026 (Nev. Feb. 23, 2018).
In a recent order, the Nevada Supreme Court held a defendant homeowners’ association (HOA) is not precluded from asserting the voluntary payment doctrine as a defense to an assessment lien overcharge claim. Aliante Master Assoc. v. Prem Deferred Trust is a class action case, in which plaintiff’s class representative, Prem Deferred Trust (“Prem”) purchased property within Aliante Master Association’s (the “HOA”) community at a bank foreclosure sale for $41,000 in 2010. At the time of the foreclosure sale, the HOA had a lien on the property for unpaid assessments.
Boca Park Martketplace Syndications Group, LLC v. Higco, Inc., 133 Nev.Adv.Op. 114, No. 71085 (December 28, 2017).
This case involves a commercial landlord-tenant dispute. In 2002, plaintiff Higco, Inc. (“Higco”) became one of Boca Park Martketplace Syndications Group, LLC’s (“Boca Park”) tenants in a Las Vegas shopping center. The parties entered into a 20-year written lease agreement in which the parties agreed Higo would have the exclusive right to operate a tavern in the shopping center. In addition, the agreement gave Higco the exclusive right to provide gaming services (i.e., gambling) in the shopping center, excluding any current tenants which were permitted to continue providing gaming facilities if already operating the same.
The Nevada Supreme Court recently issued an opinion interpreting the language of a federal regulation which requires employers to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to employees and training on how to use the PPE in certain workplace situations. The case came about due to an anonymous complaint sent into the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration (NOSHA), in which the complainant stated Sierra…