September 12, 2023 Oral Argument

Thomson, Jr. vs. Helix Electric of Nevada, LLC

Las Vegas–1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

Estate of Powell vs. Valley Health System, LLC

Las Vegas–2:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

Hoy vs. Castellon

Las Vegas– 3:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

Rueds- Denvers (Omar) vs. State

Las Vegas–3:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

Thomson, Jr. vs. Helix Electric of Nevada, LLC

Docket No. 80889/81159/81892/84216

Las Vegas–1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

These are consolidated appeals from district court orders granting an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss, findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding attorney fees and for a renewed award of attorney fees.  The issues on appeal are whether (1) the district court erred in granting respondents' anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss; (2) the district court abused its discretion by granting respondents limited discovery; and (3) whether respondents timely sought an award of fees and costs .

Estate of Powell vs. Valley Health System, LLC

Docket No. 84861

Las Vegas–2:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding respondent attorney fees and costs in a medical malpractice action.  The district court initially refused to award attorney fees and costs because respondents failed to provide supporting documentation.  Respondent then moved for reconsideration with the district court, attaching the missing documentation, and also appealed the denial.  The district court entered an order concluding it lacked jurisdiction to grant reconsideration while the appeal was pending, indicating it would otherwise award attorney fees and costs, and directed the respondents to convey the order to this court.  Instead, respondents voluntarily dismissed their appeal and submitted a proposed judgment to the district court.  The district court signed the judgment awarding attorney fees and costs.  Issues: Whether (1) this appeal was timely filed; (2) the district court had jurisdiction to enter its judgment awarding attorney fees and costs or whether respondents were required to first seek a remand from this court; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding fees and costs.

Hoy vs. Castellon

Docket No. 84521

Las Vegas– 3:00 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a new trial after the jury found for the defendants.  This case involves a two-year-old boy who nearly drowned to death in an above-ground pool in the backyard of his home.  He is now in a persistent vegetative state.  His guardian ad litem, Susan Hoy, asserted that his grandmother, Flower, the homeowner and owner of the above-ground pool, as well as his mother Susana and aunt Flor, the two adults that lived at the home, were liable for his injuries.  At trial, the parties did not settle the verdict forms on the record.  After the verdict in favor of defendants, Susan moved for a new trial, which the district court denied.  Susan now appeals, asserting that a new trial should be granted because: (1) the district court erred by presenting the issue of duty in the verdict forms to the jury, and (2) because the defense attorney’s statements in opening and closing argument warrant a new trial.

Rueda- Denvers (Omar) vs. State

Docket No. 84403

Las Vegas–3:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre

This is an appeal of an amended judgment of conviction. Appellant and his co-defendant were tried and convicted of five felony counts stemming from a bombing in a parking garage at the Luxor Hotel & Casino.  This court affirmed the conviction, but it was later overturned by a federal court and remanded for retrial.  Appellant was retried alone and convicted again.  ISSUES: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by (1) excluding evidence of the co-defendant’s prior Home Depot bomb-related acts; (2) admitting the appellant's statements to police; (3) refusing to grant a mistrial based on the State’s closing arguments; and (4) admitting testimony by the State's explosive expert regarding damage to the victim's hand. Finally, appellant asserts that the trial court committed cumulative error.