VACATED Tuesday, March 24, 2020 - Las Vegas - J. Gibbons, J. Tao, and J. Bulla
Slaughter vs. State, Dep’t of Corr.
Docket Number: 74447- COA
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals
This appeal arises from a civil rights complaint filed by appellant Rickie Slaughter alleging that Respondents violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Slaughter asserts that the prison guards at the High Desert State Prison, where he was incarcerated, organized and instigated a race-based prison riot by lifting a lockdown in Slaughter’s unit. To disperse the riot, the guards fired live shotgun rounds, which struck and injured Slaughter. After the riot, Respondents initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Slaughter for his alleged participation in the riot. Slaughter filed a complaint alleging that Respondents violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment by organizing the race-based riot, his First Amendment right by preventing him from calling witnesses at his disciplinary hearing, and his due process rights. Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint under NRCP 12(b)(5). The district court granted Respondents’ motion, finding that Slaughter failed to properly allege facts supporting his claims, and thus Respondents are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court further found that Slaughter’s due process claim was moot because he already received relief in his separate habeas case.
ISSUES:
(1) Did the district court err when it granted Respondents’ motion to dismiss as a matter of law? (2) Did the district court err when it determined that Slaughter’s due process and civil conspiracy claim were moot because he received partial relief in a separate habeas corpus petition before another court?
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.
Swalinkavich vs. Swalinkavich
Docket Number: 77860-COA
Las Vegas - 11:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
Joshua Swalinkavich and Krystal Swalinkavich agreed to the terms of their divorce decree, including custody provisions for their young child. Approximately 18 months later, Joshua filed a motion to modify child custody and Krystal filed a motion to modify custody and for permission to relocate with the child to Virginia. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted Krystal’s motion.
ISSUES:
Joshua argues that the district court erred when it found that the parties had joint physical custody prior to the motions being filed, and as a result, the district court applied the wrong burden of proof when deciding Krystal’s motion. Joshua also argues that because the parties agreed to the custody terms in the divorce decree, the decree should have been treated as a contract; therefore, the district court should have considered the parties’ intent regarding the custody terms when it decided the parties’ modification and relocation motions. Joshua also contends, among other things, that substantial evidence does not support the district court’s findings regarding the statutory relocation factors and that the district court abused its discretion by granting primary physical custody of the child to Krystal.
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.
Lopez vs. One Reverse Mortg., LLC.
Docket Number: 77084- COA
Las Vegas - 3:00 P.M. - Court of Appeals
Toney E. Lopez and One Reverse Mortgage, LLC, agreed to attempt to refinance Lopez’s reverse mortgage. Lopez argues that One Reverse Mortgage’s agent made representations to him that the application process could be completed prior to the change in FHA guidelines. Lopez completed the application and gave it to the agent, however, the agent did not include a credit report when he submitted the application for approval, and Lopez’ credit was subject to a freeze. Thus, Lopez’s application was rejected, and he was not able to resubmit it prior to the change of the FHA guidelines. Lopez sued One Reverse Mortgage claiming that One Reverse Mortgage was negligent. The district court dismissed Lopez’s claim with prejudice concluding that mortgage lenders do not owe a duty of care to borrowers and the other elements of negligence were not alleged or satisfied.
ISSUES:
The primary issues on appeal are whether: (1) lenders owe a duty of care to borrowers; (2) the economic loss doctrine prevents Lopez from bringing a negligence claim when he only suffered economic losses; and (3) Lopez’s complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice.
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.