In this case, plaintiff Charles Lombino sued Bank of America and a branch manager after relying on their assurances that a deposited check had cleared, leading him to transfer funds to a scam artist before the bank discovered the check was forged and recovered the money from his accounts. Lombino claimed damages based on theories including negligence and negligent misrepresentation, while the bank counterclaimed for the remaining overdraft. After a jury verdict in Lombino's favor on those claims, the defendants moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was unsupported by evidence and preempted by federal banking laws. The court denied the motion, finding that the verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence and that the defendants' legal arguments were not properly raised in the post-trial motion.
This case concerns challenges by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe and the United States to a Nevada State Engineer ruling that approved applications to change the place of use of Alpine Decree water rights from irrigation to wildlife habitat on the Carson Lake and Pasture without treating it as a change in manner of use. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the petitions because the decisions could plausibly affect the Tribe's decreed water rights. The court vacated and reversed the ruling, concluding that the proposed use for establishing and maintaining wetlands qualifies as a wildlife purpose under Nevada law and constitutes a change in manner of use distinct from irrigation for cash crops and pasture. The court further reasoned that the Alpine Decree limits changes in use to the net consumptive use portion of the water duty, and the proposed wetland application would convert non-consumptive irrigation rights to fully consumptive use in violation of that limit.
The case involves employees of Champion Drywall who allege they worked over forty hours per week without overtime pay, bringing a Fair Labor Standards Act claim against both the company and four of its officers and directors, along with related state law claims against the company for unpaid wages. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing insufficient factual allegations. The court dismissed the FLSA claim against the individual defendants without prejudice, reasoning that merely alleging their status as officers and directors, without specific facts showing economic or operational control over the employment relationship, failed to plausibly establish them as employers under the FLSA's broad definition as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit. The court denied the motion as to the state law claims against the company, finding the allegations of partial paychecks and unpaid IOUs sufficient to state claims for overtime wages, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel under the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard.
The case involved Dr. James Tate, a trauma surgeon with privileges at University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, who was removed from the trauma call schedule after an altercation with the family of a minor patient. Tate sued the hospital, its staff, and county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, along with related state-law claims for negligence, breach of contract, and other causes of action. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Tate failed to allege a protected property or liberty interest in remaining on the call schedule and thus could not state a plausible due process claim under § 1983; the federal claim was dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the state claims (some with prejudice and some without), denied Tate's motion for partial summary judgment, and denied his request for a preliminary injunction requiring reinstatement to the schedule.
The case involves Dr. Martin Straznicky challenging his summary suspension of medical staff privileges at Desert Springs Hospital after he entered another operating room during surgery, confronted the surgeon, and removed a lead x-ray shield needed for that procedure, which the hospital's Medical Executive Committee determined constituted disruptive conduct creating a risk of harm to patients. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motions in full, dismissing some federal claims with prejudice based on statutory immunity, others without prejudice as premature, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
This case concerned Clark County's amended Ordinance 16.12, which restricted the off-premises distribution of handbills and flyers on public sidewalks in the Las Vegas resort district if the materials primarily proposed a commercial transaction, targeting in part leaflets advertising outcall entertainment services. Plaintiffs including S.O.C., Inc., Richard Soranno, Hillsboro Enterprises, and intervenor ACLU of Nevada challenged the ordinance after a prior Ninth Circuit ruling found an earlier version overbroad. Following a bench trial, the court held that the ACLU had standing and ruled the ordinance facially unconstitutional as substantially overbroad and vague. The core reasoning was that the ordinance's reliance on the full body of Central Hudson commercial speech precedent failed to provide fair notice of its scope, improperly regulated fully protected speech without adequate tailoring as a time, place, and manner restriction, and did not cure the defects identified in the prior decision.
