Lloyd D. George

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

environmentpropertyfederal power

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedurehealthcare

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare

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.

free speechcivil rights

The case concerned applications by the United States and a Tribe to temporarily transfer water rights under Claims No. 1 and No. 2 of the Orr Ditch Decree from irrigation of reservation lands to in-stream use in the Truckee River. The court determined that both claims constitute federal reserved water rights, which are measured by the purpose of the reservation rather than beneficial use and are not subject to state-law doctrines of abandonment, forfeiture, or perfection. It affirmed the State Engineer's approval of the transfers in the amounts of 8,420 and 11,254.5 acre-feet annually, subject to conditions such as implementation via specified environmental alternatives and continued federal oversight, while reversing on the requirement to deduct transportation losses because none would occur with in-stream application starting at the diversion point.

environmentfederal powerproperty

The case involves the United States seeking a preliminary injunction against defendants operating Freedom Books for promoting schemes involving zero-income federal tax returns, false W-4 forms, and other fraudulent tax documents, along with directing customers to file frivolous lawsuits against the IRS. The court found that the defendants organized and sold plans or arrangements and made false or fraudulent statements about the excludability of income from taxation that they knew or had reason to know were false as to material matters, establishing violations of 26 U.S.C. § 6700 warranting relief under §§ 7402, 7407, and 7408. It determined after a hearing and post-hearing briefing that the government met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that an injunction was necessary to prevent recurrence, while rejecting intervenors' First Amendment challenges based on Ninth Circuit precedent. The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the injunction against the described activities.

taxesfederal powerfree speechprocedure

This products liability case arose from the 1994 crash of an aircraft near Las Vegas, Nevada, during simulated aerial combat, killing pilot Robert J. Abraham and his passenger; the plaintiffs, as heirs, sued multiple defendants including manufacturer Marchetti and retail seller Fox Five One Ltd., Inc., alleging strict liability and negligence for defects allowing a flat spin and lack of pilot override controls. Defendant Fox Five, a Texas corporation that had sold the used aircraft in Texas years earlier before it passed through Florida to a Nevada owner, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Nevada's products liability long-arm statute, N.R.S. § 14.080, did not support jurisdiction because Fox Five lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada under the Due Process Clause, as it had not purposefully directed the aircraft into the forum or foreseen its entry there via the stream of commerce. Applying precedents like Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court and analogous Nevada case law such as Wilmack, Inc. v. Second Judicial District Court, the court found no affirmative conduct by Fox Five targeting Nevada that would make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved plaintiff Marijo Pittman suing defendant J.J. Mac Intyre Co. of Nevada, Inc., a debt collection agency, for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) through repeated phone calls to her workplace after being informed they were inconvenient, along with a related Nevada state law claim for invasion of privacy. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the statute of limitations, failure to state a claim, and failure to join necessary parties. The court denied the motion, holding that only three communications fell within the one-year FDCPA limitations period and could support claims under sections 1692c, 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f, that the facts alleged were sufficient to state claims including for unreasonable intrusion on seclusion, and that complete relief was possible without joining the original creditor or prior collection agency as indispensable parties under Rule 19.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over ownership and management authority of public lands in Nye County, Nevada, where the United States sought declaratory relief affirming its title and control against state and county claims. In 1979, Nevada enacted laws asserting ownership of public lands, and in 1993, Nye County passed resolutions claiming state and county authority over those lands and rights-of-way, including actions like reopening a road across national forest land. The court granted partial summary judgment to the United States on Counts I and IV, declaring that the federal government owns the disputed lands and has authority to manage them under the Property Clause and federal statutes, and that Resolution 93-49 is preempted and invalid where no valid right-of-way exists. The reasoning rested on the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceding the lands to the United States, the Nevada Enabling Act requiring the state to disclaim title to unappropriated public lands as a condition of statehood, and subsequent federal laws like FLPMA retaining those lands under federal control.

federal powerpropertyenvironment

The case involved Broadcast Music, Inc. and other copyright owners suing Blueberry Hill Family Restaurants and its owner for copyright infringement after the restaurant played 33 copyrighted musical compositions without a license. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding all defendants jointly and severally liable, awarding $2,000 in statutory damages per infringement, and permanently enjoining further unauthorized performances. The court rejected the fair use defense after analyzing the four statutory factors, finding the use commercial in nature, the works artistic, the entire songs played, and no showing of market harm or other justification. It also rejected the innocent infringer argument because evidence showed repeated notifications by mail, phone, and in person that the defendants had received or deliberately avoided, undermining any claim of lack of awareness.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this case, a doctor sued his malpractice insurer for bad faith after it declined to settle a patient's misdiagnosis claim within policy limits, leading to a trial and excess verdict that the insurer later settled post-verdict. The court addressed whether the insurer must consider the insured's non-pecuniary harms, such as emotional distress and damage to business goodwill, when deciding on settlement, and whether the absence of a final excess judgment bars recovery of such damages. Applying Nevada law that draws from California precedents on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court held that insurers owe a duty to weigh these injuries to the insured alongside their own interests. It further ruled that damages for emotional distress and related losses may be sought even without a final judgment, as they proximately flow from any bad-faith failure to settle. The court denied the insurer's summary judgment motion and granted the plaintiff's partial summary adjudication, leaving breach and causation questions for trial.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

In Mort v. United States, plaintiffs who purchased a deed of trust on property sought a declaratory judgment and injunction to establish their lien as superior to an existing IRS federal tax lien, claiming equitable subrogation under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(i)(2) after their title insurer failed to discover the lien. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the action without prejudice, holding that the case was not ripe for equitable relief. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs had not shown the absence of an adequate legal remedy or irreparable injury, as they first needed to pursue a claim against their title insurer before invoking equity to subrogate their position ahead of the government's senior lien.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case concerned attorneys Michael H. Singer and Bradley J. Shafer, who were found to have violated Nevada Supreme Court Rule 182 through ex parte communications with a represented defendant in the underlying civil litigation. The magistrate judge disqualified the attorneys from representing the plaintiffs, issued a protective order regarding the information obtained, and later imposed sanctions requiring them to pay $46,599.26 in defendants' attorneys' fees and expenses. The district court affirmed the sanctions order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and local rules, holding that objections to the July 1992 disqualification order were untimely because they were not filed within ten days, while objections limited to the amount of sanctions lacked merit given the egregious nature of the ethical violation. The court emphasized that the sanctions applied only to the attorneys personally and not to their former clients.

procedure

In International Dealers School, Inc. v. Riley, the plaintiff school sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the Department of Education, asking the court to suspend publication of its 1989 and 1990 cohort default rates for federal student loans, notify guaranty agencies and lenders of the suspension, allow the school to use its own recalculated rates, and prevent alleged violations of 20 U.S.C. § 1085(m) and due process rights. The court granted a 60-day preliminary injunction, directing suspension and notification of the rates while requiring the school to post a $20,000 bond, after finding that serious questions existed regarding the fairness and application of the Department’s appeals process for challenging default rates based on servicing or collection errors, and that the balance of harms favored the plaintiff. The court reasoned that although the plaintiff had not shown a clear likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury, the Department’s practices raised issues under the statute requiring exclusion of improperly serviced loans from default rate calculations, and the injunction would not unduly interfere with agency operations. Jurisdiction was based on the Administrative Procedure Act, and the court distinguished but drew on precedents like Atlanta College of Medical and Dental Careers v. Riley regarding administrative appeals for eligibility determinations.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a Nevada state prisoner challenging his three consecutive or concurrent life sentences with parole eligibility for convictions of attempted murder, robbery with use of a deadly weapon, and burglary. The petitioner argued that the state sentencing court improperly applied both a deadly weapon enhancement and a habitual offender enhancement, and that it lacked sufficient prior convictions or authority to enhance each count arising from a single incident. The court granted the motion to dismiss the petition after the magistrate judge recommended dismissal. Its core reasoning was that federal habeas jurisdiction requires a claim of custody in violation of federal constitutional or statutory rights, and the petitioner's arguments concerned only the state court's interpretation and application of Nevada sentencing statutes, which do not present a cognizable federal question.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Saldivar, the defendant filed a motion arguing that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment due to defects in the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission's failure to follow the Sentencing Reform Act, with all claims centering on an asserted right to judicial discretion and individualized sentencing. The district court denied the motion and upheld the guidelines as constitutional. The court reasoned that no such constitutional right exists, following the unanimous decisions of multiple circuit courts, and rejected each specific argument—such as challenges to mechanical formulas, limits on mitigating factors, prosecutorial discretion, probation availability, and other provisions—by citing precedents that these features do not facially violate due process.

criminal law

In this case, the defendant, convicted of willfully distributing 3.5 kilograms of heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), moved to correct his sentence by removing a five-year special parole term imposed after his 15-year prison sentence. The court granted the motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), striking the special parole term. The ruling followed Supreme Court precedent in Bifulco v. United States, which held that special parole terms cannot be imposed where the relevant statute authorizes only imprisonment, fines, or both, without mentioning parole. The court applied the same principle to § 841(b)(1)(A), noting its lack of any provision for special parole terms, consistent with Ninth Circuit decisions on analogous drug statutes.

criminal lawprocedure