Oral Argument Calendar: Sept. 2

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

Docket No. 53693

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

This personal injury appeal involves process-service issues.  In the underlying case, appellant Gabriela Saavedra-Sandoval filed suit against respondent Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., after allegedly slipping and falling while shopping.  Saavedra-Sandoval subsequently served the summons and complaint upon a co-manager at the store where the incident occurred. Wal-Mart claims that its registered agent was never properly served and that it did not receive notice of the lawsuit until more than one year after the complaint was filed. Saavedra-Sandoval moved the Clark County district court for an enlargement of time to effect proper service over one year after the expiration of NRCP 4(i)'s 120-day period for serving the summons and complaint. Wal-Mart filed a countermotion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. The district court denied Saavedra-Sandoval's motion and granted Wal-Mart's countermotion to dismiss, finding that Saavedra-Sandoval failed to properly serve Wal-Mart within 120 days and did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. ISSUES: (1) Did Wal-Mart waived the defense of insufficient service of process?  (2) Should this court revisit its decision in Scrimer v. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 507, 998 P.2d 1190 (2000), in light of the fact that NRCP 4(i) was amended in 2004? (2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in determining that Saavedra-Sandoval failed to demonstrate good cause for failing to serve Wal-Mart's registered agent within 120 days. 

Las Vegas Sands, Inc. v. Suen,

Docket No. 53163

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

This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a jury verdict on an unjust enrichment claim that arose out of international business transactions between appellants Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (LVSI), Sheldon Adelson, and William Weidner and respondent Richard Suen. LVSI owns an assortment of casino and hotel operations. Adelson is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of LVSI and Weidner was LVSI's President. Suen conducts business in Hong Kong, Macau, and the People's Republic of China (PRC). He contacted Adelson after Macau announced that it intended to end its government-sanctioned monopoly of gaming. Suen told Adelson that he and his business associates had government connections in Macau and the PRC that could help LVSI obtain a Macau gaming license. After the parties met, Suen and his business associates arranged meetings in Beijing between Adelson, Weidner, and high-ranking government officials from the PRC. At one such meeting in Beijing, Adelson discussed his desire to build a resort in Macau and a Vice Premier of the PRC invited Adelson to make a bid for a gaming license. Adelson also assisted the Mayor of Beijing during this trip by speaking to Congressman Tom DeLay about a resolution pending in the United States House of Representatives. Following these successful meetings, Suen exchanged faxes with LVSI regarding compensation for his services. Weidner offered to pay a success fee to Suen and his group if LVSI obtained a Macau gaming license. Suen attempted to accept this offer on behalf of respondent Round Square Company Limited. Although Suen is one of two principals for Round Square, none of the other group members helping LVSI obtain a gaming license were associated with this entity.  ISSUES: (1) Did the district court err because Suen lacked standing allowing him to recover in quantum meruit for the efforts of his associates? (2) Did the district court err by failing to exclude the procurement deal as an offer to compromise? (3) Did substantial evidence support the jury's verdict that Suen performed valuable services for LVSI, (4) Did the district court err by admitting a statement with layers of hearsay (5) Did the district court err in refusing to instruct the jury on the presumptions of governmental regularity? (6) Did the district court err by granting summary judgment to LVSI on the fraud and breach of contract claims? 

Carstarphen v. Milsner,

Docket No. 51631

Carson City -11:30 a.m. - Full Court

This appeal presents a rather unique procedural issue involving NRCP 41(e)'s five-year mandatory dismissal rule. In the underlying proceedings in Washoe County, the district court the district court twice granted appellant, the plaintiff below, John Carstarphen's motion to toll NRCP 41(e)'s five-year period for bringing the case to trial, based on a prior order entered in response to the parties' stipulation.  That order "stay[ed] any motions or any decision on pending motions, as well as formal discovery proceedings, until further stipulation of the parties, or order of the Court." Of note here, both the stipulation and stay order were silent as to the expiration of the NRCP 41(e) period. Moreover, neither party brought to the district court's attention this court's decision in Prostack v. Lowden, 96 Nev. 230, 606 P.2d 1099 (1980), which held that despite an order granting a continuance of a trial beyond the five-year period, dismissal under the five-year rule was mandatory because the parties' stipulation for the continuance was silent as to the expiration of the five-year limit and the district court judge was not made aware of the five-year rule issue.  In this case, after the five-year period had expired, respondent moved the district court to dismiss the action, arguing the Prostack holding for the first time. Based on Prostack, the district court dismissed the action. This appeal followed. ISSUE: (1) Did the district court err in dismissing the action?  (2) Should this court adopt a rule that the running of the NRCP 41(e) five-year prescriptive period is tolled during a court-ordered stay of pretrial discovery and motion practice (3) What standard of review governs a district court's consideration of a motion to set a preferential trial date that seeks to have trial begin before the NRCP 41(e) five-year period expires and, under the circumstances of this case, did the district court improperly deny appellant's motion for a preferential trial date. 


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Oral Argument Calendar: Sept. 2.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ranchocabron.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/283

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on August 19, 2010 10:04 AM.

Oral Argument Calendar: Sept. 1 was the previous entry in this blog.

US Supreme Court grants cert. in 14 cases 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