Monday, February 10, 2020 - Las Vegas - Full Court

Canarelli vs. Dist. Ct. (Canarelli)
Docket Number: 78883
Las Vegas - 1:30 p.m. - Full Court

This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging a district court order compelling the partial production of documents in an underlying trust dispute. Edward Lubbers, represented by his estate’s administrator Petitioner Frank Martin, allegedly prepared notes in anticipation of a telephone call with his attorneys. He also wrote memorialization notes during the call as well as during a separate meeting with his attorneys and the opposing party present. The seven documents containing the notes relate to a petition filed by Real Party in Interest, Scott Canarelli, in a dispute over the management of the Scott Lyle Graves Canarelli Irrevocable Trust dated February 24, 1998 by former Trustees, Petitioner Lawrence Canarelli, Petitioner Heidi Canarelli, and Lubbers. Scott filed a motion for determination of privilege designation, and, after a hearing, the Discovery Commissioner submitted recommendations to the district court. The district court affirmed on all but a portion of one document. It found that while some portions of the notes were undiscoverable due to attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, and irrelevancy, other portions must be produced. This writ petition followed.

ISSUES:

The issues are: (1) whether the district court erred to the extent it found only a portion of the documents protected by attorney-client privilege; (2) whether a fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege exists in Nevada, and whether the fiduciary exception and NRS 49.115(5), the common interest exception, apply to the documents; and (3) whether the district court erred to the extent it found only a portion of the documents protected by the work-product doctrine.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

Figueroa-Beltran vs. U.S. of America (NRAP 5)
Docket Number: 76038
Las Vegas - 2:00 p.m. - Full Court

The Ninth Circuit certified questions.

ISSUES:

The Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to this court: (1) Is NRS 453.337 divisible as to the controlled substance requirement? (2) Does this court’s decision in Sheriff, Clark County v. Luqman, 101 Nev. 149, 697 P.2d 107 (1985), conclude that the existence of a controlled substance is a “fact” rather than an “element” of NRS 453.337 rendering the statute indivisible? If so, can this conclusion be reconciled with Muller v. Sheriff, Clark County, 93 Nev. 686, 572 P.2d 1245 (1977)? (3) Does this court’s decision in Muller conclude that offenses under NRS 453.337 comprise “distinct offenses requiring separate and different proof,” rendering the statute divisible as to the controlled substance requirement? If so, can this conclusion be reconciled with Luqman? Each of these inquiries raise one question: whether drug identity is an element of an offense under NRS 453.337.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do

Peterson vs. Peterson
Docket Number: 77478
Las Vegas - 3:00 p.m. - Full Court

James Peterson and Louisa Peterson married in 2004 and divorced in 2017. The decree of divorce provided for the division of James’s military pension, but did not specifically address James’s Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) or Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP). Louisa filed a post-decree motion, seeking adjudication of the TSP and SBP under NRS 125.150(3), which permits post judgment adjudication of assets mistakenly omitted from a divorce decree. The district court denied Louisa’s request, finding that neither the TSP nor the SBP were omitted assets.

ISSUES:

On appeal, this court considers whether the TSP and SBP were omitted assets under NRS 125.150(3). Further, this court considers whether it should revisit its holding in Henson v. Henson, 130 Nev. 814, 334 P.3d 933 (2014).

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do