Tuesday, February 20, 2018 Las Vegas - William S. Boyd School of Law - UNLV - Silver/Tao/Gibbons
Wallace vs. Smith
Docket Number: 70574
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
This case arises from a breach of contract action. Shafer Smith, now famous and popularly known as NE-YO, once belonged to the musical group ENVY in Las Vegas. In 1998, he and three other group members entered into a management contract with David Wallace. Shortly thereafter, the group parted ways with Wallace and the group moved to Los Angeles. In 2007, after NE-YO gained fame, Wallace sued all members of ENVY to recover his management fees under the 1998 contract. While the litigation was pending, Wallace divorced his wife, Tanya, and the divorce decree provided Tanya with a one-half interest in the judgment of the lawsuit. In 2011, the district court dismissed the lawsuit, and while an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court was pending, Wallace passed away. In 2014, the supreme court reversed the district court’s dismissal, and Wallace’s estate, now administered by his two daughters from a prior marriage, continued prosecuting the case with new counsel. Meanwhile, Tanya retained Wallace’s original counsel to monitor the litigation and oversee her interest from the divorce decree. In 2016, NE-YO filed a motion for summary judgment in district court, and on the hearing date Tanya’s counsel orally intervened in the action seeking to her protect her interest, but never filed a written opposition to NE-YO’s motion for summary judgment. At the hearing, the district court granted partial summary judgment regarding the scope of damages based on the Nevada Supreme Court’s direction on remand. Thereafter, Tanya filed a motion to reconsider the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment, but the court denied her motion. NE-YO and Wallace’s estate then filed a motion for good faith settlement, which the district court granted over Tanya’s counsel’s objection. On appeal, Tanya argues that the district court abused its discretion.
ISSUES:
1) denying her motion to reconsider the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment, and by 2) granting NE-YO and Wallace’s Estate’s motion for a determination of good faith settlement.
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.
Robins (Damien) vs. State
Docket Number: 71540
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals
In 2015, appellant Damien Darnell Robins committed a series of attacks on eight individuals and their vehicles using his vehicle and a sledgehammer as weapons. After an eight-day trial, the jury found him guilty of eleven of eighteen counts. The jury deadlocked on the remaining seven counts. The district court sentenced Robbins to an aggregate of 34 to 85 years in prison.
ISSUES:
1) the district court erred in issuing its own Allen charge; 2) the district court demonstrated judicial bias; and 3) the district court erred in admitting graphic crime scene photographs.
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.
King vs. Desert Palace, Inc.
Docket Number: 71317
Las Vegas - 11:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
Bernadine King sued Desert Palace, LLC d/b/a Caesar’s Palace, for negligence after an employee spilled hot coffee onto her lap, claiming that she suffered first-degree burns and psychological injuries. Desert Palace disputed King’s damages, countering she had never been hospitalized, did not need skin grafts, and did not sustain long-term physical injuries. Ms. King’s attorney, Mr. McOsker, negotiated a $145,000 settlement. Ms. King’s son, who had previously been present with Ms. King during negotiations, called Mr. McOsker to inform him that Ms. King accepted the offer. Mr. McOsker did not confirm the acceptance with Ms. King, and informed Desert Palace of the acceptance. Approximately two weeks later, Mr. McOsker’s paralegal emailed Ms. King to see if she had signed the settlement documents, and Ms. King responded that she would print and sign once her printer was fixed. At the end of the email, King advised Mr. McOsker that she had not received her psychologist’s report adding, “Not that it will change anything, but I would like to know what he said before I sign.” King later refused to sign the agreement, claiming she did not give permission for Mr. McOsker to accept the offer. Desert Palace moved to enforce the settlement agreement, and the district court granted the motion.
ISSUES:
Whether the district court abused its discretion by finding a valid settlement agreement based on the district court’s finding that Mr. McOsker had actual or apparent authority to settle Ms. King’s claim.
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.