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.
Recent PostsCourt Provides Additional Clarity on Applying Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP Statute
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 March 21, 2019) (unpublished).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.”Jury Demand within Complaint is Insufficient in Nevada
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 Feb. 19, 2019) (unpublished).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.Tyson & Mendes Wins in Nevada: Insurer Granted Summary Judgement in Potentially High-Exposure Bad Faith Lawsuit
Anderson Keuscher v. United States Liability Insurance Company, 3:17-cv-00455-LRH-WGC (Dist. Nev. Aug. 7, 2018).
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.Quit or Be Fired Means No Unemployment Benefits
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.No Absolute Privilege Against Defamation in Nevada Workers’ Comp Cases
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).Nevada’s Voluntary Payment Doctrine is a Viable Defense in HOA Lien Overpayment Cases
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.Claim Preclusion is Not Triggered by Declaratory Judgment in Nevada
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.NOSHA Adopts The “Rule Of Access” Standard To Determine PPE Training Requirements
Sierra Packaging & Converting, LLC v. OSHA, 133 Nev. Adv. Opn. 83 (Nov. 16, 2017)
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 Packaging & Converting, LLC (hereafter referred to as “Sierra”) was having employees work on top of warehouse racks without requiring fall protection PPE.Nevada Affirms Use Of Consumer-Expectation Test In Design Defect Cases
The Ford Motor Company (Ford) appealed a jury verdict in a strict liability design defect case, in which Ford unsuccessfully argued an alternative design defect test should have been included in the jury instructions. The plaintiff Teresa Gacia Trejo was driving a 2000 Ford Excursion on a highway with her husband Rafael Trejo sitting in the passenger seat. When Ms. Trejo attempted to change lanes, the trailer she was pulling fishtailed causing her to lose control of the vehicle. The Excursion rolled between 1.5 and 2.5 times before resting upside down. Ms. Trejo stated “the roof was so crushed that [she] was unable to see Rafael.” Ms. Trejo was able to climb out of the vehicle, but her husband died at the scene.Nevada Supreme Court Bans Citation to Unpublished Nevada Court of Appeals Opinions
On September 14, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order amending Rule 36 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) so that unpublished opinions of the Nevada Court of Appeals can no longer be cited in court briefs. The order is known as ADKT 0504.