Wednesday, November 20, 2019 - Las Vegas - Gibbons/Tao/Bulla

Droge vs. AAAA Two Star Towing, Inc.
Docket Number: 75206-COA
Las Vegas - 10:00A.M. - Gibbons/Tao/Bulla

A repossession agent, respondent Kristal M. Romans, and a tow truck driver, respondent Donald Shupp, were involved with an attempted automobile repossession on appellants James and Cynthia Droges’ property in Pahrump, Nevada. The attempted repossession went badly and resulted in James’ subsequent criminal prosecution for battery with a deadly weapon based on his alleged conduct during the incident. Following James’ acquittal on that charge, the Droges sued Shupp and Romans along with their employers, respondents Zane Investigations, Inc., and AAAA Two Star Towing, Inc., asserting a variety of tort claims against them on the grounds that Shupp and Romans trespassed during the attempted repossession and breached the peace when, among other things, they refused to leave when directed to do so.

ISSUES:

The primary issues on appeal are as follows: (1) did the district court err in granting summary judgment against the Droges; (2) should this court, in evaluating the Droges’ claims, consider their assertion that Romans and Shupp trespassed and breached the peace during the attempted repossession; and (3) if so, what constitutes a breach of the peace for purposes of NRS 104.9609, which is Nevada’s self-help repossession statute.

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.

Seefeldt vs. Griffie
Docket Number: 76595-COA
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - Gibbons/Tao/Bulla

Seefeldt filed a complaint for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty against respondents Donald Griffie and D&R Hydrant, Inc. The district court dismissed the case because it found that Seefeldt had missed the deadline for filing the complaint.

ISSUES:

Seefeldt appeals, arguing: 1) the district court mistakenly used the date the contract was formed, rather than the date the contract was breached (or the date the breach was discovered by Seefeldt) when calculating the deadline, and 2) the district court mistakenly used the deadline for a breach of contract case when calculating the deadline for his breach of fiduciary duty claim. Respondents argue that the district court correctly dismissed the case because Seefeldt cannot show that he filed his complaint before the deadline.

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.