December 5, 2023 Oral Arguments
Amtrust N. AM., Inc vs. Vasquez, Jr.
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Jones vs. Ghadiri
Carson City –2:00 p.m. – Full Court
Amtrust N. AM., Inc vs. Vasquez, Jr.
Docket No. 84974
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
This appeal arises from an injury respondent suffered while in the scope and course of his employment. Respondent filed a workers’ compensation claim which appellant accepted and paid benefits exceeding $170,000. Shortly after respondent sustained his injuries, he filed a third-party tort suit against several defendants. Appellant quickly intervened as respondent’s subrogee. Two years later a settlement was reached which compensated respondent primarily for pain and suffering. The district court found that because the appellant did not meaningfully participate in the third-party litigation, appellant’s lien was reduced to zero in accordance with Breen and Poremba. The district court also dismissed appellant’s claims against the third-party defendants. Appellant now appeals arguing that the district court erred by (1) applying Breen and Poremba and (2) dismissing its claims against the third-party defendants.
Jones vs. Ghadiri
Docket No. 85305
Carson City – 2:00 p.m. – Full Court
This appeal arises from a partial motion for summary judgment dismissing appellants’ cause of action for a prescriptive easement. Applying California property law, the district court found that appellants were not entitled to a prescriptive easement because such an easement would result in the respondent’s complete exclusion from his property. Appellants appeal arguing that the district court erred by not applying relevant Nevada caselaw. Amicus argues that this court should clarify the distinction between adverse possession and prescriptive easement and hold that prescriptive easements cannot result in a servient estate’s exclusion from subject property.