Nevada Supreme Court oral arguments: Jan. 5

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Nevada Supreme Court will hear en banc arguments in Carson City on Tuesday, January 5.

Brebbia (John) v. Dist. Ct./Irsfeld (Hannah) v. Dist. Ct.,

Docket Nos. 53595/53487

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

This case involves the application of the attorney-client privilege.  In an original  petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, attorneys are challenging district court orders requiring them to answer all deposition questions regarding their representation of former clients.  In the underlying case, Donald Allen sold his corporation, OHI, to Frontier Partners, but remained in his position as president of the corporation.  Allen then retained attorney Hannah Irsfeld to perform corporate work for OHI and to file a lawsuit against Frontier Partners and others on behalf of Allen and OHI for breach of contract and other claims.  In the litigation, Frontier sought to depose Irsfeld and another attorney, John Brebbia, claiming that OHI's new management waived any attorney-client privilege between Allen, OHI, and the attorneys.  Irsfeld, Brebbia, and Allen contend that all of their communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege.  After the district court in Clark County directed the attorneys to answer all deposition questions about their representation, the attorneys filed these writ petitions in the Supreme Court.  ISSUE:  Did the district court properly direct the attorneys to answer the deposition questions regarding their representation of Allen and OHI? 

American Sterling Bank v. Johnny Management,

Docket No. 52822

Carson City - 10:30 a.m. - Full court

This appeal concerns the priority of lien positions among different mortgage loan lenders for a single piece of property.  In May 2005, Jamal El Jwaidi and Kamila Zakoscielna purchased a home in Las Vegas with two loans from Steward Financial.  The first was for $2 million and received a first priority lien position, while the second was for $500,000 and received a second priority lien position.  In September 2005, the borrowers obtained a third loan, for $650,000, from Johnny Management LV, Inc.  The Johnny loan received a third priority lien position against the property.  Shortly before closing the Johnny loan, the borrowers initiated escrow to obtain a loan with American Sterling Bank for $805,000.  The American Sterling loan was intended to pay off the second Steward loan and to pay for other projects.  American Sterling intended to take the second priority lien position occupied by the second Steward loan and was unaware of the Johnny loan, which was recorded shortly before the American Sterling loan closed.  The Borrowers subsequently defaulted on the Johnny loan and Johnny recorded a notice of default and gave notice of its intention to sell the property.  American Sterling filed a motion in the district court requesting that the court stop the sale and declare American Sterling to have a second priority lien position in front of Johnny.  The district court denied the request to move American Sterling's lien position, but stopped the foreclosure sale pending the outcome of an appeal.  ISSUE:  Did the district court correctly determine the lien positions of the lenders? 

Marvin (Charles) v. State Board of Equalization,

Docket No. 52447

Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full court (Justice Pickering has voluntarily recused herself)

This appeal concerns whether the members of the State Board of Equalization have absolute immunity from a civil rights lawsuit.  In the underlying case, taxpayers appealed a decision of the Washoe County Board of Equalization on their assessed property values to the State Board of Equalization.  The State Board refused to equalize the property tax values in the manner the taxpayers requested.  The taxpayers subsequently filed a lawsuit against the State Board and its members, claiming that their civil rights were violated by the refusal to equalize the taxable value of their properties as requested.  The State Board and its members filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that absolute immunity bars the civil rights claims.  The district court granted the motion and dismissed the civil rights claims, and the taxpayers have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.  ISSUE:  Are the State Board and its members entitled to absolute immunity from this civil rights lawsuit?


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nevada Supreme Court oral arguments: Jan. 5.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on December 29, 2009 10:19 AM.

Nevada Supreme Court oral arguments: Jan. 4 was the previous entry in this blog.

This and That is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.0