February 15, 2023, Oral Arguments
Lesnick (Ronald) vs. State
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
Lee, D.O. vs. District Court (Morehouse)
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
Elite Investigations, Inc. vs. District Court (Diaz-Toler)
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
Lesnick (Ronald) vs. State
Docket No. 84577
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
Appellant was convicted of one count of commission of a fraudulent act in a gaming establishment, one count of grand larceny, and one count of theft following a three-day trial. During the trial, the district court permitted the victim witness who did not wish to travel due to COVID-19 concerns to testify remotely and admitted the preliminary transcript reading of another witness who was unavailable due to contracting COVID-19. The district court rejected appellant’s proposed jury instruction on abandonment and denied his request to remove a jury instruction on persons liable for punishment based upon its purported possible connection to sovereign citizen ideologies. ISSUES: (1) did the convictions violated appellant’s double jeopardy protections; (2) would a reasonable juror could find intent to defraud or steal; (3) did the district court violated appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by permitting the remote testimony of the victim witness; (4) did the district court improperly allowed the reading of preliminary hearing testimony for a witness; (5) did the district court abused its discretion in permitting the state’s jury instructions for abandonment and persons liable for crimes; and (6) was there cumulative error warranting reversal.
Lee, D.O. vs. District Court (Morehouse)
Docket No. 84662
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
Real party in interest sued medical professionals for professional and ordinary negligence causes of actions. Petitioners, emergency physicians, were named solely for an ordinary negligence claim for failure to disclose the results of a blood report showing an infection. Petitioners sought motions to dismiss arguing that real party failed to meet NRS 41A.071 requirements for a claim that sounded in professional negligence. One petitioner also motioned for summary judgment for the same reason. The district court denied the motions finding that the claims sounded in ordinary negligence and that the Estate of Curtis exception applied. ISSUES: (1) is writ relief is appropriate; (2) whether pursuant to Estate of Curtis, professional negligence claims with the common knowledge exception are entitled to NRS Chapter 41A protections; (3) are real party in interest’s claims for professional or ordinary negligence; (4) whether the motions to dismiss were properly denied; and (5) whether the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
Elite Investigations, Inc. vs. District Court (Diaz-Toler)
Docket No. 85020
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
This petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition arises from personal injuries real party in interest Aiden Diaz-Toler suffered when he was struck by a Jeep equipped with a "Bull Bar" manufactured and sold by real party in interest TeraFlex, Inc. Diaz-Toler and his mother brought various claims against TeraFlex, the driver of the Jeep, and others. During the litigation, TeraFlex, though its attorneys, hired petitioner Elite Investigations, LLC, to conduct sub-rosa surveillance of Diaz-Toler in preparation for trial. In an amended complaint, Diaz-Toler included claims against Elite based on alleged misconduct by its employees during their surveillance. The claims against Elite include (1) invasion of privacy, (2) defamation, (3) negligent misrepresentation, and (4) civil conspiracy. Elite moved to dismiss, arguing that all the claims are predicated on statements made during or preliminary to court proceedings or is litigation conduct that is protected under the absolute litigation privilege. The district court denied the motion. Elite now challenges the district court's ruling by way of this original writ petition alleging the district court manifestly abused its discretion in denying their motion because (1) the court disregarded the broad nature of Nevada's absolute litigation privilege, and (2) all the claims set forth in the operative complaint are based on conduct that is protected by the absolute litigation privilege.