Wednesday, December 16, 2020 - Carson City - J. Parraguirre, J. Hardesty and J. Cadish
SMITH VS. ZILVERBERG C/W 80348
Docket Number: 80154
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - Northern Nevada Panel 2020
This is a direct appeal from district court orders granting respondents’ special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute and granting respondents’ motion for attorney fees in a defamation action.
ISSUES:
The issues on appeal are whether: (1) respondents’ statements were good faith communications in furtherance of their right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern; (2) appellant demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claim with prima facie evidence; (3) NRS 41.670 allows a prevailing defendant to recover attorney fees for the entire lawsuit or limits a prevailing defendant’s recovery to fees incurred litigating the anti- SLAPP motion; and (4) NRS 41.670’s additional statutory award of up to $10,000 can be granted to each individual defendant or if it is limited to each individual lawsuit.
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
HOME WARRANTY ADM'R OF NEV., INC. VS. STATE, DEP'T OF BUS. AND INDUS.
Docket Number: 80218
Carson City - 11:00 A.M. - Northern Nevada Panel 2020
This is an appeal from a district court order affirming in part and reversing in part an order of the Division of Insurance (the Division).
ISSUES:
In this appeal we consider whether: (1) the hearing officer deprived appellant of due process by adjudicating unnoticed violations, (2) the hearing officer’s interpretation of NRS 690C.150 was erroneous, (3) the hearing officer’s ruling regarding appellant’s failure-to-make-records-claim was clearly erroneous, (4) the Division deprived appellant of due process by allowing its certificate of registration to expire without notice and a hearing, (5) the hearing officer clearly erred by concluding that appellant’s new evidence was immaterial, and (6) the hearing officer’s false-entry rulings were erroneous.
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
PINTAR VS. DIST. CT. (AA PRIMO BUILDERS, LLC) C/W 81362
Docket Number: 81053
Carson City - 1:00 P.M. - Northern Nevada Panel 2020
These consolidated petitions for writs of mandamus concern a dispute over attorney fees and costs. The district court sanctioned the petitioner, who was the plaintiff’s attorney in the underlying breach of contract matter, under NRS 7.085 for maintaining an action not warranted by existing law. During trial, a witness called during the plaintiff’s case in chief testified that the contract that formed the basis of the plaintiff’s claim was void as a matter of law. Petitioner maintained the action on the plaintiff’s behalf after the witness testified, bringing the matter through trial, a jury verdict, and post-judgment motions practice, which led to a judgment in favor of real parties in interest. Ultimately, real parties in interest filed a motion for attorney fees and costs against the plaintiff under various statutes and against petitioner as a sanction under NRS 7.085. The district court granted the motion after conducting an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner filed petitions for writs of mandamus seeking review of the district court’s orders that awarded fees and costs for two different time periods.
ISSUES:
The issues in these petitions are whether the district court properly (1) concluded that petitioner maintained the breach of contract claim after knowing the claim was meritless, thus warranting sanctions that require her to personally pay the resulting attorney fees and costs under NRS 7.085; and (2) awarded attorney fees and costs for post-judgment litigation concerning petitioner’s liability under NRS 7.085, in which petitioner was partially successful.
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