Thursday, January 24th, 2019 - Las Vegas - Douglas/Tao/Gibbons

McCreary vs. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Docket Number: 73743-COA
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals

Paul McCreary was an inmate in Ely State Prison when he filed his complaint alleging sexual misconduct by his cellmate. McCreary brought suit against the NDOC and several correctional officers in their official capacities for their alleged indifference to the incident involving his cellmate. In his pro se complaint, McCreary sued for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (§1983) alleging three specific violations of his First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment rights. McCreary also characterized the claims as violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) noting specific PREA standards the prison staff allegedly violated. The district court found that McCreary failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, PREA does not create a private right of action, and the State and the NDOC are not proper parties in a §1983 action. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

ISSUES:

Whether (1) the district court erred in dismissing McCreary’s complaint because he pled civil rights violations and not just PREA claims; (2) his lack of administrative exhaustion was excusable; and (3) whether the respondents all had protection from a civil rights lawsuit if the State and the NDOC are immune, and because the individual defendants were not named in their individual capacities.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.

Lee vs. Lee
Docket Number: 73746-COA
Las Vegas - 2:00 P.M. - Court of Appeals

Jake Lee and his wife Sun Hoi Lee, co-owners and managers of a restaurant, sued their former employee, Soon Yi Lee, for defamation. In their complaint, Jake and Sun Hoi claimed that Soon Yi told Sun Hoi that Jake had sexually harassed Soon Yi and carried on an extramarital affair with another employee. Soon Yi filed a counterclaim against Jake for battery, assault, sexual harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), claiming that Jake had regularly groped and sexually harassed her for several years. After a bench trial, the district court found that Soon Yi defamed Jake and awarded him presumed damages of $1,000 and punitive damages of $500. The court also found for Soon Yi on her assault, battery, and IIED claims, awarding her $50,000 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in punitive damages. Jake appeals.

ISSUES:

Whether (1) the district court erred in calculating its damages award to Soon Yi; (2) the compensatory damages award was excessive; (3) the district court erred in finding that Soon Yi carried her burden of proof for her IIED claim; (4) Soon Yi failed to produce evidence that Jake requested; (5) the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence; (6) the district court abused its discretion in its assessment of the witnesses’ credibility; and (7) the district court erred or abused its discretion by denying Jake’s demand for a jury trial.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.