Wednesday, September 6, 2023 Oral Arguments

Wynn vs. Nielsen

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court

Valley Health Sys., LLC Vs. Murray C/W 80113/80968

Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court

Wynn vs. Nielsen

Docket No. 85394

Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Full Court

This is an appeal from a district court order granting respondent Jorgen Nielsen’s special motion to dismiss plaintiff Steve Wynn’s defamation suit pursuant to Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statutes.  Initially, the district court denied the motion, finding that Nielsen failed to satisfy prong one of the anti-SLAPP analysis.  Nielsen appealed and this court reversed and remanded to proceed to prong two of the anti-SLAPP analysis.  After the district court determined that limited discovery was not warranted as to this second prong of the analysis, it found that Wynn failed to show with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claim and granted Nielsen’s special motion to dismiss.  Wynn’s instant appeal centers on argument that the district court abused its discretion in denying limited discovery and concluding that he failed to meet his burden under prong two of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

Valley Health Sys., LLC Vs. Murray C/W 80113/80968

Docket No. 79658/80113/80968

Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court

LaQuinta Murray was admitted to Centennial Hospital for a sickle cell crisis, and she died in the hospital a few days later.  Her estate and heirs sued Centennial, and the jury awarded the plaintiffs over $16 million in compensatory damages and nearly $32.5 million in punitive damages. Centennial appeals, arguing (1) the district court erred in entering judgment against Centennial for intentional breach of fiduciary duty; (2) alternatively, Chapter 41A applies to the jury’s fiduciary duty finding and reduces the damages awards; (3) the punitive damages award should be reversed or reduced; (4) Centennial is entitled to a new trial or remittitur due to undisclosed expert testimony and an excessive verdict; (5) the district court’s award of prejudgment interest on future damages constitutes plain error;  and (6) the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs.