September 12, 2025, Oral Arguments
BagelMania Holdings, LLC vs. RDH Interests, Inc. c/w 87901
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Panel B25
Field Effect Sec. Inc. vs. Dist. Ct. (Anderson) (Civil)
Las Vegas – 10:45 a.m. – Panel B25
BagelMania Holdings, LLC vs. RDH Interests, Inc. c/w 87901
Docket No. 86531
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Panel B25
Appellants Bagelmania and Somerset appeal from a district court order dismissing their complaint alleging nonresidential construction defect claims against respondents, who were design professionals contracted in the design and construction of the Bagelmania restaurant in Las Vegas. Appellants argue the district court erred when it held that NRS 11.258 required Bagelmania and Somerset to file separate attorney affidavits and expert reports when they filed their complaint. They also argue the district improperly granted partial summary judgment for the mechanical engineer contractor and improperly awarded attorney fees and costs to the architect contractor.
Field Effect Sec. Inc. vs. Dist. Ct. (Anderson) (Civil)
Docket No. 89495
Las Vegas – 10:45 a.m. – Panel B25
Real party in interest Eric Anderson sued petitioner Field Effect Security Inc. under NRS 613.010, a statute that prohibits employers from luring employees to their business entity through false or deceptive representations. Field Effect moved for summary judgment, arguing that Anderson’s claim failed as a matter of law because a civil cause of action under NRS 613.010 requires that an employee geographically relocated in reliance on the employers’ false representations. Field Effect also moved to strike Anderson’s demand for a jury trial, arguing that Anderson waived his right to a jury trial under the employment contract. The district court denied the motions, determining that an employee’s change of place of employment satisfied NRS 613.010’s civil cause of action requirement and that Field Effect’s motion to strike was untimely and other factors weighed against enforcing the jury waiver provision. Field Effect now seeks a writ of mandamus, claiming that NRS 613.010 mandates judgment in its favor as it is undisputed that Anderson did not geographically relocate and that the contractual jury trial waiver is enforceable.