Thursday, December 2, 2021 - Las Vegas - Parraguirre/Stiglich/Silver
Helix Elec. of Nev., LLC vs. Apco Constr., INC.
Docket Number: 77320 c/w 80508
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Southern Nevada Panel
This case concerns a construction contract dispute. The property owner, Gemstone, initially hired respondent/cross-appellant APCO Construction Inc. (“APCO”) as its general contractor pursuant to the Gemstone-APCO contract, and Gemstone selected appellant/cross-respondent Helix Electric of Nevada, LLC (“Helix”) to be a subcontractor on the Project. APCO and Helix had an agreement that included a pay-if-paid provision for Helix’s retention fees, meaning APCO must be paid by Gemstone in order for Helix to receive payment for its work, even if Helix completed its part in the project. Before the project was complete, APCO terminated its contract with Gemstone pursuant to NRS 624.624-.630. Gemstone then hired Camco Pacific Construction, Co., Inc. (“Camco”) as a general contractor. Helix continued working on the project throughout this time. The project was never completed. Helix filed suit against Gemstone, APCO, and Camco, but Helix’s appeal only concerns its claim against APCO for Helix’s retention fees. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed Helix’s claims for retention against APCO, and awarded costs and attorney fees to APCO against Helix. Helix now appeals.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether (1) the district court erred by enforcing the APCO-Helix subcontract as the operative agreement; (2) the pay-if-paid provision concerning retention controls the subcontract; and (3) APCO’s obligations to Helix were waived, assigned, or novated.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Maide, LLC vs. Dileo
Docket Number: 81804
Las Vegas - 10:30 A.M. - Southern Nevada Panel
Appellant Maide, LLC is a Nevada LLC doing business as Gentle Spring Care Home. Thomas DiLeo was admitted to Gentle Spring after he developed dementia and needed constant care. Thomas thereafter injured his leg and Gentle Spring allegedly failed to adequately care for the wound or transport Thomas to the hospital when his leg later became infected. Thomas passed away from complications stemming from the injury. Thomas’s Estate and his children sued Maide, who moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision. The district court denied the motion.
ISSUES:
The primary issue raised in this appeal is whether the arbitration provision complied with NRS 597.995 and is binding on the parties, but a threshold issue is whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts NRS 597.995.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
Hangrove vs. Ward
Docket Number: 81331
Las Vegas - 11:30 A.M. - Southern Nevada Panel
Appellant Lillian Hargrove and Respondent Thomas Ward were never married, but had one child together, G.W. The parties never filed for a paternity action or had a court enter an award of child support during G.W.’s minority. One year and three months after G.W. reached the age of majority, Hargrove, for the first time, filed a paternity action seeking retroactive child support from Ward. Hargrove argues that the district court erred when it did not find an enforceable child support contract under NRS 126.900(1). In the alternative, Hargrove argues that the district court erred when it determined that it did not have the authority under NRS 125B.030 to establish an order for retroactive child support for the first time after the age of majority.
ISSUES:
The two issues on appeal are (1) whether there is an enforceable contract between the parties; and (2) in the alternative, if a parent can file for retroactive child support for the first time after the child has reached the age of majority.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
The Nevada Indep. vs. Whitley
Docket Number: 81844
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Southern Nevada Panel
This is an appeal from a denial of a writ of mandamus in a public records matter. Appellant, The Nevada Independent (“TNI”) filed this writ against respondents, The Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) and DHHS Director Richard Whitley (“Whitley”) in his official capacity, under the Nevada Public Records Act (“NPRA”) to compel the release of records relating to the pricing and distribution of diabetic medication in Nevada. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (“Sanofi”) filed a motion to intervene in this matter and joined respondents after its request was granted by the district court. Culinary Workers Union Local 226 (“Culinary”) filed an amicus brief in support of TNI on appeal. The district court denied TNI’s writ petition.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether: (1) the records sought by TNI are trade secrets under the NUTSA, NRS 600A et seq.; (2) the records sought by TNI are trade secrets under the DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.; (3) the DTSA preempts the NUTSA; (4) the district court abused its discretion in declining to strike James Borneman’s declaration; (5) NAC 439.730-.740 are invalid regulations; and (6) Whitley and DHHS are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do