Wednesday, May 27, 2020 - Las Vegas - Court of Appeals
Dell’Oro vs. Kemp
Docket Number: 78852-COA
Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Court of Appeals
Carla Dell’Oro appeals a district court judgment pursuant to an arbitration award in favor of Lynette Kemp. In 2017, Dell’Oro was walking her dogs near her home when two of them broke loose from their leashes. Kemp and her dog, who were walking nearby, suffered bite wounds from Dell’Oro’s dogs. Kemp sued Dell’Oro, and the case was assigned to arbitration. After Dell’Oro did not attend the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator issued an award in favor of Kemp. Dell’Oro requested a trial de novo, and the district court ordered Dell’Oro to comply with NAR 18(A), which requires a party seeking a trial de novo to certify that all arbitration fees had been or would be paid. Dell’Oro filed a second request for trial de novo that still did not comply with NAR 18 A).Thus, the district court denied Dell’Oro’s request for trial de novo.
ISSUES:
. On appeal, Dell’Oro contends that she did not have a duty to comply with NAR 18(A), and therefore did not have to certify that she had paid all arbitration fees, because there is nothing in the record to show that the arbitrator sent a bill. Thus, Dell’Oro contends that the judgment of the district court should be reversed.
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:
On appeal, 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.
Kuchta vs.. Sheltie Opco, LLC
Docket Number: 76566- COA
Las Vegas - 2:00 p.m. - Court of Appeals
This case arises from appellant Joseph Kuchta’s personal injuries, which he sustained while riding a mechanical bull located in the Nugget Hotel and Casino, an establishment owned by Respondent Sheltie Opco. Before riding the bull Kuchta signed an assumption of risk, release, indemnity, and medical treatment agreement. However, Kuchta alleges that a Gilley’s employee assured him that he could receive a ride that was a 2 out of 10-difficulty level. After the ride started, the employee increased the bull’s speed and intensity until Kuchta was eventually thrown from the bull, injured, and transported to the hospital for care. Kuchta sued for his injuries and Sheltie Opco moved for summary judgment early in the litigation. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment on all of Kuchta’s claims.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: (1) Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Kuchta’s negligence claims? (2) Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for Kuchta’s battery 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.