Thursday, September 12, 2019 - Las Vegas - J. Pickering, J. Parraguirre, and J. Cadish
Greenland Super MKT., Inc. vs. KL Vegas, LLC C/W 74931
Docket Number: 73806
Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Northern Nevada Panel
This is a consolidated civil appeal from an underlying lease agreement action challenging an order from a final judgment and an order awarding attorney fees and costs. Appellant Greenland Super Market, Inc. entered into a lease agreement with Spring Mountain and Rainbow Investments, LLC in July 2009. One addendum to the lease provided Greenland’s base rent schedule and an avenue for which Greenland could recover rent credits for any payment in excess after submitting financial statements on quarterly basis. In 2010, the district court dismissed a claim by Greenland because it failed to provide its financial statements before the action accrued. In 2013, KL Vegas, LLC (KL) purchased SMRI’s assets. In 2014, Greenland filed suit against KL and asked that the district court declare the term “financial statements” used in Paragraph 68 of Addendum No. 2 to mean a report of gross sales. After several rounds of pretrial motions and an 8-day bench trial, the district court entered its order concluding that Greenland was required to submit financial statements consisting of an income statement and balance sheet. Subsequently, the district court awarded KL attorney fees because it found KL to be the prevailing party pursuant to the parties lease agreement. Greenland argues that the district court erred.
ISSUES:
(1) Found that the prior action had a preclusive effect as to the meaning of financial statements, (2) Found that Greenland waived its right to rental credits, (3) Found that the statements Greenland produced under the protective order was not performance of the lease, and (4) Awarded KL attorney fees as the prevailing party.
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
Martz vs. Dist. CT. (Switch, Inc.)
Docket Number: 77437
Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Northern Nevada Panel
In October 2017, Switch, Inc. executed an initial public offering (IPO), resulting in the sale of roughly 36 million shares of Class A common stock. Among the stock purchasers were petitioners, who filed a consolidated putative class action complaint in the Eighth Judicial District Court pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, 15 USC § 77k. Petitioners alleged that defendants violated the Act by making misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement related to the Switch IPO. After petitioners filed the state court action, other parties filed an action in federal court asserting the same Securities Act violation claims against defendants. In the state court action, the district court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings in deference to the federal action. Petitioners filed this writ petition, challenging the district court’s decision to stay the state action.
ISSUES:
The primary issues presented are whether the district court applied the correct legal standard or considered the appropriate factors in granting the stay and whether balancing the relevant factors militates in favor of denying a stay.
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