Tuesday, June 1, 2021 - Las Vegas - Full Court
SENJAB VS. ALHULAIBI (CHILD CUSTODY)
Docket Number: 81515
Las Vegas - 10:00 AM - Full Court
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a complaint for divorce. The district court concluded that, as a matter of law, appellant Ahed Said Senjab and respondent Mohamad Alhulaibi are not domiciled in Nevada because both are nonimmigrant visa holders. It dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after concluding that Nevada’s divorce-jurisdiction statute requires at least one party to be domiciled in Nevada.
ISSUES:
On appeal, Senjab argues that the district court erroneously interpreted the divorce-jurisdiction statute to require domicile when its plain meaning requires only residence. She notes that the Ninth Circuit decision the district court cited also holds that conflating residence and domicile is erroneous. The National Immigrant Women’s Advocacy Project (NIWAP) argues in an amicus brief that an F-2 visa, which Senjab holds, does not preclude domicile. So it argues that the district court erred by concluding that Senjab is not domiciled in Nevada.
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
A CAB, LLC VS. MURRAY
Docket Number: 77050
Las Vegas - 10:30 AM - Full Court
This is an appeal from summary judgment and several post judgment orders in a minimum wage act class action matter. Respondents Michael Murray and Michael Reno are the class representatives in a class action against appellants A Cab, LLC and A Cab Series LLC. Murray, Reno, and all class members were taxi drivers employed by A Cab who sued A Cab with the primary claim being brought under the Minimum Wage Act of the Nevada Constitution. These parties have been before the court in relation to this action several times. (See Docket Nos: 7261, 73326, 81642, 82539, as well as earlier actions under Docket No. 77050). The suit was filed in 2012. After lengthy discovery, pre-trial litigation, and the above-mentioned appearances before this court, the district court entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs in 2018 and simultaneously severed the claims against A Cab’s owner, Creighton Nady (which had already been bifurcated). Appellants allege several errors of the district court.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether the district court (1) abused its discretion by severing the claims against Nady; (2) ever had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims; (3) properly interpreted the Minimum Wage Amendment’s notice requirements and tolled the statute of limitations on that interpretation; (4) erred in granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs; (5) erred by amending the judgment to add “A Cab Series LLC” and denying a motion to quash collection of the judgment from allegedly separate series within the LLC; and (6) abused its discretion in awarding costs and attorney fees.
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
CLARKE VS. SERV. EMPLOYEES INT'L UNION C/W 81166
Docket Number: 80520 C/W 81166
Las Vegas - 11:30 AM - Full Court
Appellant/cross-respondent Robert Clarke had a for-cause employment contract with respondent/cross-appellant Service Employees International Union, Local 1107. When respondent/cross-appellant Service Employees International Union (SEIU) imposed a trusteeship over the local chapter, the trustee terminated Clarke’s employment without cause and Clarke filed the underlying wrongful termination action. The district court granted the Union’s summary judgment concluding that Clarke’s wrongful termination action was preempted by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Additionally, the district court concluded that Clarke could not have maintained claims against SEIU because SEIU did not employ him and did not have a contract with him. The district court denied the Unions’ motions for attorney fees.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: Did the district court (1) err in concluding Clarke’s claims were preempted by the LMRDA; (2) err in granting summary judgment on Clarke’s claims against SEIU when he claimed alter ego liability against SEIU; and (3) abuse its discretion when it denied the Unions’ motions for attorney fees.
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