Tuesday, May 4, 2021-Carson City-Full Court
81319 CHAVEZ, JR. VS. BENNETT
Docket Number: 81319
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - En Banc
Appellant Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. is a professional boxer. Chavez’s promoter, Matchroom Boxing USA, LLC, requested a permit for a boxing match featuring Chavez to take place at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada. After Chavez promoted the match on social media, a representative from respondent Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) attempted to perform a random drug test on Chavez under Nevada’s antidoping laws. Chavez refused to submit for the test. Respondent Bob Bennett, the executive director of NSAC, notified Chavez that he was temporarily suspended pending formal disciplinary proceedings. At an administrative hearing, NSAC decided to extend Chavez’s temporary suspension until the disciplinary matter was resolved. Chavez filed a complaint against Bennett and NSAC in the district court, arguing that NSAC did not have jurisdiction over him because he was not licensed in Nevada. Chavez also applied for, and the district court granted, a preliminary injunction. Bennett and NSAC moved to dismiss Chavez’s complaint and dissolve the preliminary injunction, which the district court granted as a motion for summary judgment and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
ISSUES:
On appeal, Chavez argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment because (1) NSAC did not have personal jurisdiction over him, (2) the temporary suspension violated his substantive due process rights, and (3) he is exempt from exhausting administrative remedies because he asks a constitutional question and because seeking administrative relief is futile. Chavez also argues that the district court erred by dissolving the preliminary injunction.
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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
79921 SOMERSETT OWNERS ASS'N VS. SOMERSETT DEV. CO., LTD.
Docket Number: 79921
Carson City - 11:00 A.M.. - En Banc
This case involves construction defect and related claims arising from allegations of defective rock walls in a development. The district court granted summary judgment against appellant, concluding that the statute of repose in NRS 11.202 (2015) had expired. Appellant appeals, arguing that because of the defects in the wall they were never “substantially completed” and thus the statute of repose did not expire.
ISSUES:
Appellant also argues that there should be tolling or estoppel of the repose period for the time period when the developer held control of the HOA board. Appellant also argues its warranty claims should not be subject to the applicable statute of repose.
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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
81730 WEITZ ESQ. VS. STATE BAR OF NEV.
Docket Number: 81730
Carson City - 1:30 P.M. - En Banc
This petition for a writ of prohibition concerns the State Bar of Nevada’s attempt to discipline an out-of-state law firm. The Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board panel concluded that the State Bar had disciplinary jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state law firm because the law firm advertised on national cable television, some of which advertisements appeared in Nevada, and the firm represented a Nevada resident who responded to such an advertisement in a defective products liability case. Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition directing the State Bar to dismiss the disciplinary complaint.
ISSUES:
The issues in this petition are whether the disciplinary panel properly concluded that the State Bar had disciplinary jurisdiction over petitioners’ conduct in representing a Nevada resident and specific personal jurisdiction over petitioners through their contact with 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: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do