May 15, 2024, Oral Arguments
PHWLV, LLC vs. House of CB USA, LLC
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A24
In RE: Parental Rights As To L.R.S., J.M.S. and J.L.S.
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A24
Thomas Labs, LLC vs. Dukes
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Panel A24
Cardenas-Garcia vs. Dist. Ct. (Dept. of Family Serv.)
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Panel A24
PHWLV, LLC vs. House of CB USA, LLC
Docket No. 85413
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A24
PHWLV owns and operates Planet Hollywood Hotel & Resort, which lies adjacent to and above the Miracle Mile Mall. The hotel’s fire suppression system burst at a coupling in a service corridor, leading to a flood of water escaping out the service corridor and into the Mall. Some of the water entered House of CB and Chinese Laundry’s storefronts, causing immense water damage to their inventories. The stores sued PHWLV for negligence, asserting that PHWLV had the responsibility of preventing water from escaping its property and damaging the property of another. The district court granted summary judgment on the duty and breach elements of negligence and then, during the ensuing jury trial, judgment as a matter of law on the causation element. The jury solely determined damages, which it awarded to both stores. The district court then denied PHWLV’s motion for a new trial and awarded attorney fees to both plaintiffs. Here, we consider (1) whether the district court should have granted summary judgment; (2) whether it should have awarded attorney fees to either plaintiff; and (3) if reversed and remanded, whether the matter should be transferred to a different judge.
In RE: Parental Rights As To L.R.S., J.M.S. and J.L.S.
Docket No. 86682
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A24
This case involves the termination of a parent’s parental rights in a non-NRS 432B setting. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that appellant had abandoned and neglected his children. The district court, relying upon NRS 128.109, found that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the best interest of the children. Appellant argues that the district court erred when it found that he abandoned and neglected his children, relied on NRS 128.109, and terminated his parental rights. Appellant now asks this court to reverse the district court and restore his parental rights.
Thomas Labs, LLC vs. Dukes
Docket No. 85946
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Panel A24
Appellant sued respondent and a business she operated for a contract dispute. During the litigation, respondent died, and her counsel filed a suggestion of death on the record but served it on only the parties to the dispute. Appellant substituted respondent’s trust. Thereafter, a probate action was opened, resulting in a different individual serving as the personal representative of respondent. When appellant belatedly attempted to substitute the personal representative, the district court instead granted respondent’s motion to dismiss all claims against her, reasoning that the proper party had not been substituted within the 180-day deadline required by NRCP 25, and appellant had failed to demonstrate excusable neglect justifying an extension of time. ISSUES: (1) whether the district court properly interpreted NRCP 25 by concluding that service of parties, without serving respondent’s nonparty successor representative, triggered the 180-day deadline; (2) alternatively, even if the 180-day deadline was triggered, whether the amended suggestion of death filed by respondent’s counsel later reset the deadline such that the motion to substitute the personal representative is not untimely; and (3) alternatively, even if appellant exceeded the NRCP 25 deadline, whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion by concluding that appellant had not demonstrated excusable neglect to extend the deadline.
Cardenas-Garcia vs. Dist. Ct. (Dept. of Family Serv.)
Docket No. 87414
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Panel A24
Petitioner lost custody of her child after pleading no contest to the State’s protectionary concerns. As a result of the same substantive conduct, Petitioner also pled guilty in criminal court to felony child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. This was a conditional plea and Petitioner was allowed to withdraw the felony guilty plea after successful completion of the probationary period. Petitioner then entered a plea of guilt to the associated misdemeanor. ISSUE: whether the district court erred in not considering if the statute creating a higher burden of proof for parents that have “ever been convicted” of felony child abuse still applies after a felony guilty plea has been successfully withdrawn.