Wednesday, July 7, 2021-Carson City-J. Cadish, J. Pickering, and J. Herndon

80211 PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC. VS. NEWMYER
Docket Number: 80211
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - Northern Nevada Panel

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a district court judgment after a bench trial in a business matter. Respondent/cross-appellant Michael E. Newmyer worked for appellant/cross-respondent companies, Premier One Holdings, Inc. and MRT Investments, LLC (collectively, the companies), in which the individual appellants/cross-respondents hold interests. The appellants/cross-respondents ostensibly made Newmyer part-owner and member of the companies, after which time the companies began to have financial difficulties. Newmyer filed a complaint seeking appointment of a receiver over the companies, as well as declaratory relief stating his ownership/member status in the companies, and damages for allegedly unpaid salary and/or fees. However, Newmyer missed multiple critical court dates, and the district court ultimately dismissed his complaint and answer to appellants’ related counterclaim, and ordered a prove-up hearing for damages on that counterclaim. Newmyer moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, which the district court summarily granted. Following the subsequent trial on the merits, the district court appointed a receiver over the companies and issued Newmyer’s requested declaratory relief, but dismissed his claims for monetary damages, declined to reopen discovery, and also awarded appellants nominal damages on their counterclaim. This appeal and cross-appeal followed.

ISSUES:

At issue is whether the district court erred by: (1) granting the motion for reconsideration; (2) issuing declaratory relief; (3) declining to reset discovery; (4) appointing a receiver; and (5) awarding nominal damages on the counterclaim.

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

80849 JSJBD CORP. VS. TROPICANA INVES., LLC
Docket Number: 80849
Carson City - 10:30 A.M. - Northern Nevada Panel

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment and order awarding attorney fees and costs in a contract action. JSJBD entered into a lease agreement with Tropicana, which included options to extend the lease term without stating the amount of rent for the option period. When appellants sought to exercise their second option to extend, the parties were unable to agree on a rent schedule. The option period commenced and Tropicana began receiving payments according to amounts consistent with early negotiations. Tropicana later served a thirty-day notice to quit on the basis that appellants had no enforceable option to extend. JSJBD sought judicial declaration for reasonable rent according to market conditions, and asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The district court determined that the parties reached an agreement on rent and that the agreed upon schedule was reasonable. Appellants prevailed on each of the claims they sought, thus the court awarded appellants’ attorney fees and costs. Tropicana prevailed on its counterclaim that proved damages for underpayments of rent and was similarly awarded its fees and costs.

ISSUES:

ISSUES: Whether the district court (1) erred in determining the rent amount, (2) erred in calculating the damages for underpaid rent, (3) abused its discretion in awarding Tropicana attorney fees under the lease agreement, (4) abused its discretion in awarding both parties’ fees and costs, and (5) abused its discretion in awarding appellants’ attorney fees as special damages.

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

81551 SUNSERI (KEVIN) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 81551
Carson City - 11:30 A.M. - Northern Nevada Panel

Appellant was incarcerated in Nevada when the underlying warrant was issued. No actions were taken to execute the warrant for 25 months until the day appellant was set to be released from prison. Instead of being released, appellant was transferred to the jail on the underlying charges. Appellant accepted a guilty plea agreement, but became incompetent before sentencing could be imposed. When his competency was reestablished, he retained new counsel and sought to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that his right to a speedy trial had been violated and his counsel never advised him of that violation before he entered the guilty plea. The district court denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a subsequent motion to dismiss the charges.

ISSUES:

ISSUES: did the district court (1) abuse its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss the charges, and (2) err in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

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