Monday, February 13, 2017 - Las Vegas - Silver/Tao/Gibbons
Charles vs. Omni-Terra Solutions, LLC
Docket Number: 68440
Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Charles filed a breach of contract case against Omni Terra Solutions (“Omni”) in department 3 of justice court before Judge Gibson. After Judge Gibson dismissed the case, Charles filed a substantively identical case before Judge Burr, in department 1 of justice court. Judge Burr entered judgment against Omni, but vacated the judgment when he discovered the minutes in Judge Gibson’s case showed that case had been dismissed with prejudice, though no findings of fact or conclusions of law were entered in the case. The district court granted Charles’s petition for writ of mandamus, directing Judge Gibson to make further findings. Judge Gibson entered an order clarifying that he dismissed the case without prejudice. Judge Burr reinstated the judgment against Omni, and Charles filed a writ of execution. Omni filed a motion for reconsideration, and Judge Burr remanded the case to Judge Gibson for further findings of fact. Judge Gibson struck Charles’s writ of execution, finding the contract serving as a basis for Charles’s case was void. The district court denied Charles’s second petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition, finding it had no jurisdiction in the case
ISSUES:
(1) Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying Charles’s second petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction?
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.
Slezak vs. Slezak (Child Custody)
Docket Number: 69518
Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from findings of fact and conclusions of law and decree of divorce and award of attorney fees and costs.
ISSUES:
Did the district court abuse its discretion in requiring a right of first refusal to the other party on nights when the party with custody had to work without considering best interests of the children or other necessary factors? (2) Did the district court err in imputing additional income to appellant based on willful underemployment without making the necessary findings and without evidence to support such a conclusion? (3) Did the district court err in awarding spousal support? (4) Did the district court abuse its discretion in the division of community property, debts, and the past expenses related to the daughter's gymnastics? (5) Did the district court err in determining responsibility for health insurance costs? (6) Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to respondent?
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.