May 7, 2024, Oral Arguments
Go Wireless, Inc. vs Dist. Ct. (Herdemian) c/w 86808
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Adventure Photo Tours, Inc. vs. State, Dep’t of Taxation
Carson City –2:30 p.m. – Full Court
Go Wireless, Inc. vs Dist. Ct. (Herdemian) c/w 86808
Docket No. 86328/86808
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
This pair of consolidated original petitions for writs of mandamus or prohibition challenge two district court orders in a class action lawsuit. First, an order expanding the class certification. Second, an order bifurcating the trial. Real parties in interest sued petitioner Go Wireless for breach of contract and related claims based on allegations that Go Wireless failed to pay commissions as stated in their 2016 employee contract. The district court certified the class of employees covered by that contract. RPIs later moved to amend the class to add later employees covered by revisions to that employee contract. Go Wireless opposed the motion, arguing that a different contract governed the new class members’ commissions such that the NRCP 23 requirements for class certification were not met. The district court granted the motion, explicitly relying on its previous NRCP 23 analysis, and Go Wireless has now filed a writ petition presenting the same arguments as it did below. Later, RPIs moved to bifurcate the trial between the two subclasses. Go Wireless opposed the motion, arguing that NRCP 42(b) governed the bifurcation rather than NRCP 23. The district court granted bifurcation pursuant to NRCP 23(e). Here, we consider (1) whether this court should entertain the petitions, and if so; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in expanding the class; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in bifurcating the trial.
Adventure Photo Tours, Inc. vs. State, Dep’t of Taxation
Docket No. 86170
Carson City –2:30 p.m. – Full Court
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review. The petition for judicial review challenged a delinquency assessment for a tax that the taxpayer claims is preempted by federal law. Granting a motion to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds, namely that appellant did not pay the delinquency before petitioning for judicial review, the district court did not reach the preemption question. Issues: (1) Whether NRS 360.395 is a jurisdictional prerequisite; (2) Whether Adventure Photo complied with NRS 360.395, assuming it applies; (3) Whether NRS 360.395 violates Adventure Photo's due process rights; (4) Whether NRS 360.395 violates Adventure Photo's equal protection rights; and (5) Whether the statute governing the underlying tax, NRS 372B.150, is preempted by federal law.