Wednesday, April 14, 2021-Las Vegas-J. Parraguirre, J. Stiglich, and J. Silver

80837 HARVEST MGMT. SUB LLC VS. DIST. CT. (MORGAN)
Docket Number: 80837
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. Petitioner argues that the district court manifestly abused and capriciously exercised its discretion by denying a motion for entry of judgment and ordering a separate trial to decide an issue that Real Party in Interest Morgan never pleaded, proved, or pursued in any way until after trial.

ISSUES:

Issues: Whether the district court manifestly abused or capriciously exercised its discretion by (1) concluding that Morgan pleaded vicarious liability; (2) concluding that Morgan didn’t bear the burden of proving vicarious liability; or (3) denying Petitioner’s motion for entry of judgment as to negligent entrustment.

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

79861 GUNERA-PASTRANA (GUSTAVO) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 79861
Las Vegas - 11:00 A.M. - Southern Nevada Panel

Appellant Gustavo Adonay Gunera-Pastrana appeals from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of two counts each of lewdness with a child under the age of 14 and sexual assault of a minor under 14 years of age.

ISSUES:

He argues that (1) jurors Googling the definition of “common sense” was prejudicial juror misconduct, (2) he was denied a venire from a fair cross-section of the community because the jury commissioner did not comply with NRS 6.045, (3) the district court committed instructional errors by allowing a lewdness instruction inconsistent with the State’s information, and by allowing a flight instruction, (4) the district court undermined his presumption of innocence by telling jurors that police and prosecutors do not randomly prosecute defendants, (5) prosecutorial misconduct warrants reversal because the State asked leading questions and indirectly referenced his right to not testify, and (6) cumulative error warrants reversal.

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

80834 BURNS (DAVID) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 80834
Las Vegas - 1:00 P.M. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of conspiracy to commit murder, burglary while in possession of a firearm, two counts of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, murder with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and battery with the use of a deadly weapon. Appellant David Burns was charged as the shooter in a home robbery where a woman was shot and killed, and her 12-year-old daughter was shot and lived. The State initially sought the death penalty, before entering into a mid-trail stipulation and order with Burns in which he agreed to a sentence of life without parole if the jury convicted him of first-degree murder, and agreed to waive all appellate rights stemming from “the guilt phase of trial” in exchange for the State not seeking the death penalty. The jury convicted Burns of all charges, and he was sentenced to life without parole as per the agreement. Burns appeals.

ISSUES:

The issues on appeal are whether Burns waived any, if not all, of his appellate claims; and, if certain claims are not waived, whether they warrant reversal.

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

79459 NICOLE VS. SETERUS, INC.
Docket Number: 79459
Las Vegas - 2:00 P.M. - Southern Nevada Panel

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss in a wrongful foreclosure and tort action. Appellant Sylvia Nicole sued respondents Fannie Mae, Seterus, Inc., and Selene Finance (the bank respondents), alleging generally that the bank respondents improperly refused to accept her mortgage payments and then unlawfully took steps to foreclose on the property that she owned. Appellant also recorded a lis pendens with respect to the property. Despite the lawsuit and the lis pendens, the property was sold at foreclosure to respondent Breckenridge Property Fund. Thereafter, the bank respondents moved to dismiss appellant’s complaint with prejudice under NRCP 12(b)(5). When appellant failed to timely oppose the motion, the bank respondents asked the district court to grant the motion under EDCR 2.20(e), which permits a district court to treat an unopposed motion as a concession that the motion is meritorious. The district court granted the bank respondents’ motion and denied appellant’s motion to set aside the dismissal order, reasoning that appellant lacked diligence in updating her mailing address.

ISSUES:

The issues on appeal are: (1) whether this court has jurisdiction to consider only the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion to set aside the dismissal order or if this court also has jurisdiction to consider appellant’s challenge to the dismissal order itself; (2) whether the district court was within its discretion to grant the bank respondents’ NRCP 12(b)(5) motion based on EDCR 2.20(e); (3) whether appellant’s complaint survives the NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissal standard; and (4) whether the bank respondents conceded that the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice.

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