Tutor-Saliba Corporation vs. Continental Fire Sprinkler Company

Las Vegas – 1:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguire

Nalder vs. Lewis

Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguire

Davitian-Kostanian vs. Kostanian

Las Vegas – 2:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

Clark County School District vs. District Court (J.D.)

Las Vegas – 3:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

Tutor-Saliba Corporation vs. Continental Fire Sprinkler Company

Docket No. 81822

Las Vegas – 1:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguire

This is an appeal challenging findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders in a breach of contract action.  Appellant is a general contractor who secured a contract to build the Encore Hotel & Casino and subcontracted with respondent to design and install approximately 100 fire sprinkler systems throughout the Encore.  Three years after construction, a leak was discovered in one of the systems and appellant learned that many of the systems’ components were not installed in accordance with the manufacturer requirements.  Appellant asked respondent to inspect and repair any faulty installations, but respondent refused, and appellant incurred expenses to hire another contractor to inspect and make the necessary repairs.  Appellant then brought the underlying action.  After a bench trial, the district court dismissed appellant’s claims related to thirty-two of the systems because it found appellant failed to disclose certain documents about those systems during discovery. The district court also found that both parties breached the Subcontract and awarded appellant only a fraction of its requested damages.  The district court also awarded respondent attorney fees and costs because it found appellant unreasonably rejected respondent’s offer of judgment prior to trial. ISSUES: Whether the district court: (1) erred in finding appellant had a duty to inspect under its construction and interpretation of the parties’ obligations in the Subcontract and, if so, if it abused its discretion in finding appellant breached and failed to mitigate its damages; (2) abused its discretion in dismissing appellant’s claims related to thirty-two systems; (3) erred in precluding recovery by appellant of certain categories of damages that were expressly provided for in the contract; and (4) abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to respondent.

Nalder vs. Lewis

Docket No. 83392

Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

This appeal and cross-appeal arise from over a decade of litigation involving three different cases.  All three cases stem from respondent United Automobile Insurance Company’s (UAIC) failure to defend its insured, respondent/cross-appellant Gary Lewis (Gary), in a personal injury lawsuit brought by appellant Cheyenne Nalder (Cheyenne), through James Nalder (Cheyenne’s father), after Gary hit Cheyenne with his vehicle when she was 9 years old.  The first case, in 2007, resulted in Cheyenne’s father obtaining a $3.5 million default judgment against Gary in district court in 2008.  The second case, in 2009, involved Gary’s and Cheyenne’s father’s bad faith claims against UAIC and resulted in several dispositions in federal court, the Ninth Circuit, and this court.  Finally, the instant appeal arises from two steps Cheyenne took in 2018 at the district court: first, Cheyenne obtained an amended judgment based on the 2008 judgment, but in her own name (the amended judgment); and second, Cheyenne filed the third case, in 2018, asserting a common law action on the amended judgment and, alternatively, seeking declaratory relief that the 6-year statute of limitation for renewal was tolled by: (a) her minority, (b) Gary’s absence from the state, or (c) a payment made on the judgment in 2015.  Cheyenne now appeals the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment to UAIC on her claims in the 2018 case, and Gary cross-appeals from a corresponding ruling granting summary judgment to UAIC on his third-party claims.  In granting summary judgment to UAIC, the district court found that Cheyenne’s and Gary’s claims were barred by claim and issue preclusion because of various dispositions stemming from the 2009 case.  ISSUES: Whether the district court erred in (1) determining that claim and issue preclusion are preclusive as to questions relating to Gary’s liability to Cheyenne and UAIC’s liability to Gary; (2) determining that Cheyenne’s and Gary’s arguments for tolling were waived, and alternatively, without merit; and (3) allowing UAIC to intervene.

Davitian-Kostanian vs. Kostanian

Docket No. 84086

Las Vegas – 2:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

Appellant Noune Davitian-Kostanian and respondent Varoujan Kostanian divorced in 2012.  Noune was awarded primary physical custody of their 14-year-old minor child and Varoujan was ordered to pay $1,100 per month in child support until the minor reached the age of majority. He was also ordered to pay alimony to Noune beginning at $8,000 per month in November 2011, with a gradual reduction to $4,000 per month until its expiration in October 2021.  One day prior to the expiration of Varoujan’s alimony obligation, Noune filed a motion seeking to modify alimony, to reinstate child support, and to obtain related relief.  The district court rejected Noune’s motion, finding her request for continued adult child support was untimely and that no changed circumstances warranted modification of the alimony award.  ISSUES: (1) whether NRS 125B.110 permits a court to award adult child support payments after child support payments end, and (2) whether there are changed circumstances warranting alimony modification?

Clark County School District vs. District Court (J.D.)

Docket No. 85469

Las Vegas – 3:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

This writ petition concerns negligence claims brought in 2022 by real party in interest J.D., on behalf of herself and her minor son, B.D., against petitioners Clark County School District (CCSD), and three of its administrators at William V. Wright Elementary School (Wright Elementary). J.D. alleges that petitioners negligently failed to prevent and respond to her son’s sexual abuse by classmates at Wright Elementary in 2016.  Petitioners moved to dismiss J.D.’s individual claims, arguing that they were barred by a two-year statute of limitations.  The district court denied petitioners’ motion, citing to NRS 11.215(1), which eliminates any limitations period for claims arising from sexual abuse of a minor.  The issues on appeal are whether (1) writ relief is appropriate given that petitioner challenges an interlocutory district court order denying a motion to dismiss; (2) the district court abused its discretion by (a) applying NRS 11.215(1) to a non-perpetrator of sexual abuse, and (b) failing to consider NRS 11.215's legislative history in deciding whether the statute applies to claims by a victim’s parent.