An Offer of Judgment, when used properly, is a vital tool in the litigator’s toolbox. Timing, purpose, and potential benefits and detriments all must be considered prior to deploying your Offer of Judgment. But keep in mind, even with those factors considered, a court could invalidate your Offer of Judgment if it is non-compliant.
It is no surprise the landscape of transportation is drastically changing. With the advancements in technology, vehicles are becoming autonomous. Consumers will soon have the option to buy a vehicle they will not need to actually drive. Also, people looking for transportation to travel from one place to another no longer need to call a traditional taxi service. Individuals can now take advantage of one of the many ride-sharing or peer-to-peer programs available on their smartphones. Autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles are at the forefront of technological development in the automobile industry.
The collateral source rule provides, if an injured party received compensation for his or her injuries from a source independent of the tortfeasor, this payment should not be deducted from damages which plaintiff would otherwise collect from the tortfeasor. (Proctor v. Castelletti, (1996) 112 Nev. 88, 90 n.1, 911.) While California has departed from the collateral source rule since Howell v. Hamilton Meats, Nevada courts still strictly adhere to it, with few exceptions.
Nevada legalized both recreational and medical cannabis by a 2016 ballot initiative, and in doing so joined a growing number of states with similar changes in legal philosophy. As an industry trailblazer, the Silver State benefited from a $529.9 million “green” rush in taxable sales during the first fiscal year alone, with the state receiving its share of nearly $70 million in taxable revenue (enabling a substantial earmarking for education and the “Rainy Day” contingency fund). Additionally, Nevada’s boon resulted in an economic growth of $989.7 million through cannabis-based auxiliary businesses and an income increase of $443 million by virtue of the 8,300 full-time equivalent jobs created to meet industry demands.
Most workers in the United States would say they are overworked, underpaid, and are suffering from too much stress due to a variety of issues. In addition, the food we eat is overly processed and we drink sugar-loaded caffeinated drinks as if they were water. All of these things contribute to health problems most working adults endure including obesity, high blood pressure, insomnia, migraines, and stress-related illnesses.
The Court of Appeals of Nevada reminded all Nevada litigators a Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer should not be made or rejected lightly. In O’Connell v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 7 (Nev. App. 2018), Plaintiff was visiting Wynn Las Vegas when she slipped and fell. Wynn offered Plaintiff $3,000 to settle the case despite Plaintiff’s disclosure of $33,000 in medical damages. Plaintiff rejected Wynn’s $3,000 offer and submitted a counter-offer for $49,999, which included interest, costs, and attorney fees. Wynn rejected the offer and the case proceeded to trial where the jury found in Plaintiff’s favor, assigning 60% liability to Wynn and 40% to Plaintiff and leaving Plaintiff with a $240,000 judgment. Plaintiff then moved for reimbursement of her post-offer fees and costs to the tune of $96,000. Wynn opposed Plaintiff’s motion by arguing Plaintiff’s failure to provide billing records precluded Plaintiff from recovering the post-offer fees and costs. The District Court agreed and Plaintiff appealed.
In some jurisdictions, a party to a civil lawsuit is not required to disclose documents or other evidence unless and until another party in the case directs discovery requesting/demanding the same. However, Nevada imposes an obligation on all parties in a civil lawsuit to serve initial disclosures of witnesses and exhibits and produce copies of all non-privileged relevant documents before the parties are permitted to engage in discovery. And for defendants, Nevada law requires their initial disclosures to include complete copies of all potentially applicable insurance policies, regardless of the potential liability exposure in the case.
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.
In CP Food & Beverage, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled an insurance company had no duty to indemnify a strip club, which reimbursed patrons for credit card charges fraudulently placed on their cards by employees of the club. The court held, the club’s reimbursement of the fraudulent charges did not constitute a direct loss by the club. CP Food & Beverage, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance Company (2017 WL 6998968)
In a much anticipated decision, the Nevada Supreme Court finally put to rest the question of whether Nevada’s homeowner association (HOA) lien foreclosure statutes require notice to junior lienholders. The Nevada Supreme Court’s unanimous en banc holding in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Bank of New York Mellon, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (2018) explicitly denounced the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ prior construction of such statutes, and established new precedent for lower state and federal courts.
We have all been there. It is the standstill during mediation where it seems there is no way a settlement is going to be reached, and you feel as though you have reached the point of no return. However, with a few simple strategies and considerations, you may be able to breach this impasse and move on with meaningful settlement discussions.
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.
Contrary to the portrayal of the law on television and in film, not all of my cases are glamorous or interesting. Furthermore, not all of my cases have involved clients I have liked or with whom I have wanted to work. In fact, some of my clients have been downright aggravating and unsympathetic. When I defend an unsympathetic or difficult client, I have to remind myself that the beauty of a democracy is everyone is entitled to a defense.
In its most recent decision concerning Nevada’s ever-problematic home owners’ association (“HOA”) lien statute,  the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the statute’s mandatory award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 116.3116(8) provides, “[a] judgment or decree in any action brought under this section must include costs and reasonable attorney’s fees for the prevailing party.” Parties have invoked this provision as a means for obtaining fees and costs in any lawsuit invoking NRS 116.3116. However, the holding in Carrington Mortg. Holdings, LLC v. R Ventures VIII, LLC, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (Nev. 2018), upends NRS 116.3116(8)’s application outside a very specific context.