April 30, 2025, Oral Arguments
Royal Essex, LLC vs. Azteca Real Estate Partners, LLC
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Panel B25
Khamamkar, M.D. vs. HCA Healthcare, Inc.
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Panel B25
Malagon vs. Domino’s Pizza
Las Vegas– 2:15 p.m. – Panel B25
Royal Essex, LLC vs. Azteca Real Estate Partners, LLC
Docket No. 87401
Las Vegas – 11:00 a.m. – Panel B25
This case arises from the disbursement of funds in Essex Real Estate Partners, LLC following its bankruptcy. After a bench trial, the district court found for respondents Azteca Real Estate Partners and Danon Blea and awarded damages. Appellant Royal Essex, LLC argues that respondent failed to establish a causal route to damages where the bankruptcy proceeds were insufficient to pay senior priority members and respondents were junior priority members. Appellant also claims that respondents failed to adequately support their claim of damages with evidence.
Khamamkar, M.D. vs. HCA Healthcare, Inc.
Docket No. 88041
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Panel B25
After a surgical center suspended Dr. Khamamkar’s practicing privileges, Dr. Khamamkar sued. In his complaint, Dr. Khamamkar alleged a number of causes of action, including requests for both monetary and declaratory relief. The district court found that a federal immunity statute, the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, barred Dr. Khamamkar’s claims and granted Surgicare’s motion for summary judgment. That statute immunizes doctors and hospitals from monetary claims for disciplinary decisions those doctors and hospitals make, provided they follow certain due process requirements.
Dr. Khamamkar appeals raising two arguments: (1) that the HCQIA, which only bars monetary damages, does not bar his request for declaratory relief and (2) that he has either generated genuine issues of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment or deserves an NRCP Rule 56(d) deferral to discover facts necessary to defend against the motion for summary judgment.
Malagon vs. Domino’s Pizza
Docket No. 88603
Las Vegas– 2:15 p.m. – Panel B25
Following a motor vehicle collision between an individual driver and a Domino’s delivery driver, the drivers reached a settlement agreement that released all claims against the delivery driver. Later, the individual driver sued Domino’s on the theory that the claims against it as the delivery driver’s employer had not been released. The district court determined that the settlement agreement had released the claims against Domino’s, as the driver’s employer, and granted Domino’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and dismiss the case. The individual driver now appeals this decision arguing that the settlement agreement did not include a release of claims against Domino’s and that Domino’s lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary to enforce the settlement agreement.