Tuesday, January 26, 2021-Las Vegas-Court of Appeals
74683-COA YASOL VS. GREENHILL
Docket Number: 74683-COA
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court judgment after a bench trial in a civil action. Respondents, Donna and Lyle Greenhill allege that their next-door neighbor, appellant Gloria Yasol, misused an easement located between the parties’ residential properties. The Greenhills filed a complaint seeking damages for trespass, nuisance, and intentional interference with contractual relations, among other things. As part of the underlying case, the district court issued a preliminary injunction that required Yasol to move certain planters and other personal property off the easement. The district court found Yasol in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction and ordered sanctions against her. However, Yasol could not pay the ordered sanctions, so the district court ordered Yasol to complete community service instead. Yasol failed to complete the ordered community service, and as a result, the district court placed Yasol in jail for 28 days in lieu of paying the sanctions from the initial contempt order. Ultimately, there was a one-day bench trial, where the district court entered judgment in mostly in favor of the Greenhills, and awarded Yasol damages for one of her counterclaims.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: whether the district court (1) erred in granting the preliminary injunction; (2) abused its discretion when finding Yasol in contempt; and (3) relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence when rendering its final judgment following the bench trial.
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.
77520-COA PAZ VS. RENT-A-CENTER
Docket Number: 77520-COA
Las Vegas - 11:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
While driving for Rent-A-Center, Iris Marroquin rear-ended a vehicle in which George Paz was a passenger. Paz brought a complaint for damages against Rent-A-Center and Marroquin. Prior to trial, the district court excluded Paz’s treating physician, Dr. Kozmary, because Paz failed to timely disclose him in his pretrial disclosures. The jury rendered a verdict for Paz, awarding him $30,000 to cover his past medical expenses. The jury declined to award damages for pain and suffering.
ISSUES:
Issues: Whether (1) the district court abused its discretion by excluding Dr. Kozmary because Paz failed to timely disclose him in his pretrial disclosures; (2) Paz is entitled to a new trial because Defendants committed attorney misconduct by suggesting Paz was committing insurance fraud and referencing Paz’s prior car accidents, prior work-related injury, and preexisting diabetes diagnosis; and (3) Paz is entitled to a new trial on damages because the jury rendered an inconsistent verdict by declining to award damages for pain and suffering
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.
79576-COA BARBIERI VS. STATE, EMP'T SEC. DIV.
Docket Number: 79576-COA
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals
Appellant, Anthony Barbieri appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for judicial review of his second appeal to the Employment Security Division (ESD). Barbieri’s first petition for review resulted in remand to the ESD appeals tribunal to consider whether he was terminated for misconduct. The appeals tribunal determined on remand that Barbieri voluntarily quit and that, even if he was terminated, he engaged in misconduct pursuant to NRS 612.385. Barbieri again petitioned for judicial review, but this time his petition was denied.
ISSUES:
On appeal, Barbieri claims that the appeals tribunal improperly considered the issue of whether he voluntarily quit on remand because Barbieri’s employer waived the issue in the first appeal and because the law of the case doctrine precluded it from doing so.
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.
80499-COA SULLIVAN VS. SULLIVAN
Docket Number: 80499-COA
Las Vegas - 2:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals
Lee and Leslie Sullivan married in Arizona in 2013 and later divorced in Nevada in 2020. Prior to marriage, they entered into a premarital agreement, part of which stated the agreement would be governed by Arizona law. After moving to Las Vegas in 2016, the couple continued traveling outside of Nevada. Prior to trial, Lee moved the district court to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied his motion, finding Leslie was a resident of Nevada because she had a Real ID Nevada driver’s license, filed her tax returns as a Nevada resident, registered to vote in Nevada, and voted in the 2018 midterm elections. At trial, before Lee testified on his own behalf, the court’s marshal prohibited him from bringing his notes with him to the stand; Lee did not object. After the one-day trial, the district court granted them a divorce decree and split their assets into separate and community property.
ISSUES:
Issues: Whether (1) the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over this petition for divorce; (2) the district court erred when it applied Nevada law instead of Arizona law; (3) this court should reverse the divorce decree because the court’s marshal prohibited Lee, who was representing himself, from using his notes during his testimony; (4) the divorce proceeding was unfair because it was tainted by racial bias against Lee, the only Black participant.
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.