Robert Clive Jones

This case was a qui tam action brought by two private plaintiffs under Nevada’s False Claims Act (NRS Chapter 357) on behalf of the state and its counties against more than 40 financial institutions, including Fannie Mae. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knowingly filed false State of Nevada Declaration of Value forms with county recorders to avoid or underpay real property transfer taxes on thousands of transactions, improperly claiming exemptions as government entities or misidentifying parties on trustee’s deeds. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked statutory standing because they were not original sources of the information under NRS § 357.100; they had merely researched publicly recorded forms rather than possessing direct and independent knowledge, so only the Nevada Attorney General could pursue such claims based on public disclosures. The Attorney General had declined to intervene.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case concerns a Nevada foreclosure dispute in which plaintiff Vega challenged the validity of a 2009 MERS assignment of a deed of trust from original lender CTX to Chase, alleging it failed to properly transfer the underlying note and rendered the subsequent foreclosure defective. After earlier dismissing most claims and temporarily enjoining foreclosure due to uncertainty over MERS’s authority, the court granted the motions to dismiss and for relief from the mediation requirement filed by CTX, Bartosh, and Matthews. The court reasoned that these defendants had disclaimed any interest in the property, did not conduct the foreclosure, and were not the current beneficiary or trustee, even though the affidavit they submitted was flawed and failed to resolve the assignment issues. Chase and Cal-Western, the entities actually pursuing foreclosure, remain subject to the prior orders.

property

The case arose from the 2006 bankruptcy of USA Commercial Mortgage Company, a mortgage broker and loan servicer, after which Compass acquired interests in thousands of Loan Servicing Agreements (LSAs) with Direct Lenders, financed by Silar and later assumed by Asset Resolution through foreclosure. Plaintiffs, consisting of Direct Lenders, sued Compass, Silar, and Asset Resolution seeking declaratory relief on LSA interpretations and damages for alleged breaches related to loan servicing, compensation, and handling of loan proceeds. Following pretrial rulings and a jury trial, the court entered final judgment awarding plaintiffs declaratory relief on servicer compensation and repayment priorities under the LSAs, approximately $79,000 in compensatory damages plus fees and interest, and $5.1 million in punitive damages for claims including breach of contract, fiduciary duty violations, conversion, and conspiracy, while denying defendants' post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial based on the jury's findings and contractual language.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves three firefighters who sued their employer, Day & Zimmermann Hawthorne Corp., alleging a racially and sexually hostile work environment, pregnancy discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and negligent training and supervision. The district court addressed the defendant's motions for summary judgment on each plaintiff's claims under Title VII and state law. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part for plaintiffs Brophy and Armstead, allowing their gender- or race-based hostile work environment claims, pregnancy discrimination claims, and (for Armstead) retaliation claims to proceed to trial due to genuine factual disputes, while dismissing other claims for lack of evidence or jurisdiction. The court granted summary judgment in full against plaintiff Lightfoot on all claims for failure to show adverse employment actions or other required elements. It also dismissed the negligent supervision and training claim for all plaintiffs because Nevada law requires physical harm, which was not alleged.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this consolidated case, Incline Energy sued two groups of defendants in state court over alleged failures to repay loans and comply with a loan modification agreement tied to worker's compensation claims against Walmart and a separate $270,000 loan. Defendants removed the actions to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for improper venue or transfer for convenience. The court denied the motions, applying standards under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 and related case law on venue and jurisdiction, while noting forum selection clauses favoring Nevada and discussing potential champerty issues in the funding agreements without resolving them as grounds for dismissal.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case consists of two consolidated foreclosure actions brought by plaintiff S. Burke Smith against Community Lending, Inc. and related entities concerning investment properties in Fallon, Nevada. The plaintiff alleged eleven causes of action challenging MERS's authority to assign deeds of trust, the validity of subsequent foreclosures by BAC and Recontrust, and related claims under debt collection and lending statutes. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that federal-question jurisdiction existed due to FDCPA claims incorporated into Nevada law and that non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined. It granted the motions to dismiss, reasoning that deed-of-trust language granted MERS sufficient agency to transfer interests, foreclosure is not debt collection under the FDCPA, and remaining claims were either time-barred or meritless.

propertyprocedure

This case is a prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by John R. Neff, an inmate at Ely State Prison, against several prison officials including the warden and correctional staff. The claims arise from a disciplinary hearing on gang activity and assault charges where the plaintiff alleges he was denied the opportunity to present or review evidence, leading to sanctions including loss of statutory time, as well as the withholding of legal mail, both following unsuccessful grievances and appeals. The court had previously dismissed the due process claim related to Security Threat Group status for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissed other counts with leave to amend; upon screening the Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the PLRA for failure to state a claim or other deficiencies, the court refers the matter to early mediation and orders the parties to file a notice of intent within thirty days.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

This case involves a church's challenge to foreclosure proceedings on its mortgaged property after an alleged oral agreement to modify the loan terms by waiving a balloon payment. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief and demanded binding arbitration under clauses in the promissory note and deed of trust, while the defendants moved to dismiss. The court extended a temporary restraining order against the foreclosure sale, denied the motion to dismiss, and ordered the parties to arbitration. It reasoned that the arbitration provisions covered disputes over the note, deed, and any modifications, while severing an unconscionable provision that would have allowed unilateral exclusion of real property issues from arbitration. The court also noted potential statute of frauds issues with the oral modification but determined they were for the arbitrator to resolve.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, tribal members sued the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, its officials, BIA employees, and a consultant, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged due process and equal protection violations under the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, the tribal constitution, and election codes, stemming from the tribal council's handling of petitions and referendum votes. The court granted the Tribe's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend. It held that the Tribe possesses sovereign immunity from suit that had not been waived by statute, the tribal constitution, or the election code, and that the ICRA provides no private right of action here beyond habeas corpus relief. The court further concluded that the Tribe was a necessary and indispensable party under Rule 19 that could not be joined, requiring dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7), and that the proposed amendments adding criminal charges or new plaintiffs would be futile.

civil rightselectionsfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns a challenge to the foreclosure of a residential property in Sparks, Nevada, after the plaintiffs defaulted on two deeds of trust originally held by CTX Mortgage. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that the foreclosure was statutorily defective under Nevada law because MERS purported to assign the beneficial interest to Chase Home Finance without owning the underlying debt or having clear agency authority to transfer it. The court reasoned that under the traditional rule separating the mortgage from the note, or potentially the Restatement (Third) of Property approach, the assignment might leave Chase without enforceable rights, rendering the notice of default and trustee's sale potentially invalid, though it noted that further evidence of MERS's agency could alter this outcome and that the Restatement rule might limit the plaintiffs' claims.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a homeowner's challenge to the foreclosure of her residential property in Reno, Nevada, after she defaulted on an adjustable-rate mortgage. The plaintiff sued the loan servicer and related entities in state court, alleging defects in the notice of default and violations of debt collection and lending practices laws, seeking declaratory relief and quiet title. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court, finding diversity jurisdiction, and granted summary judgment to the defendants on claims related to debt collection violations, unfair trade practices, and unfair lending practices due to lack of evidence supporting the allegations. However, the court denied summary judgment on the declaratory relief and quiet title claims because potential issues with compliance to the deed of trust's notice requirements could affect title superiority. The reasoning centered on the authenticity of documents, the plaintiff's admissions of default, and the redundancy but potential viability of quiet title actions based on foreclosure defects.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned plaintiffs Michelle and Peter Weingartner suing Chase Home Finance and the Cooper Castle Law Firm over multiple claims arising from the non-judicial foreclosure of their Nevada home mortgage, including disputes about the roles of MERS as nominee and beneficiary on the deed of trust and the authority to substitute trustees. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, dismissing Chase as a defendant and all claims except those for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and negligence as pled against Cooper, while declining to expunge the lis pendens. The core reasoning examined the limited agency powers of nominees under deeds of trust, the requirements for valid foreclosure when a note is in default, and ambiguities in the deed language regarding transfers of beneficial interests, concluding that some claims against the law firm could proceed based on the alleged conduct.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a property owner's challenge to Nevada Senate Bill 358 and a related Clark County ordinance that restricted residential density increases and new non-residential zoning on land near the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, including the plaintiff's 2400-acre former gypsum mine site zoned for rural residential use. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief that the measures violated the U.S. and Nevada Constitutions, alleging they were enacted to depress the property's value for potential government acquisition. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the fourth and fifth causes of action, denied the defendants' motions on the first cause of action, and granted the defendants' motions on the second cause of action. It reasoned that the legislation advanced a legitimate government interest in protecting the land from development, defeating the substantive due process claim, while the equal protection claim could proceed because the measures singled out the specific property.

propertyenvironmentcivil rights

This case involves plaintiff Roy Insco, who allegedly contracted hepatitis C from unsafe practices at two Nevada clinics that were part of defendant Aetna's preferred provider network under an employer-sponsored health plan. Insco sued Aetna in state court for negligence and negligence per se, claiming the insurer failed to properly evaluate, audit, and supervise the clinics as required by state law and regulations, as well as for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Aetna removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing ERISA preemption and failure to state claims. The court denied the motion as to the negligence claims, finding they were not preempted by ERISA and sufficiently pled a duty and breach, but granted it as to the bad faith claim because the allegations amounted to negligence rather than intentional interference with contract benefits. The core reasoning centered on distinguishing tort duties from contractual good faith obligations and the limited scope of ERISA preemption for state-law negligence claims against plan administrators.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between Georgiou Studio, Inc. and Boulevard Invest, LLC over the eviction of Georgiou from commercial space at the Miracle Mile Shops and the subsequent failure to execute a new lease agreement, with claims including breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and abuse of process; Boulevard had also brought third-party claims against its former property manager Related Urban Management Company. The court denied Boulevard's motions to amend its answer and third-party complaint and granted Boulevard's motion for summary judgment on all of Georgiou's claims, while also denying Georgiou's motion to strike. The court reasoned that Georgiou failed to show justifiable reliance on any representations by Boulevard's agents because the letters of intent explicitly stated no binding contract existed until a lease was executed by both parties, that there was no evidence of an ulterior motive or improper use of process to support the abuse of process claim, and that proposed amendments were unnecessary or precluded by prior rulings on related claims.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Miller v. DePuy Spine, Inc., plaintiff Roger Miller sued DePuy Spine and JDA Surgical Associates after experiencing ongoing pain following the implantation of a Charité Artificial Disc during spinal surgery, alleging strict product liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA under 21 U.S.C. § 360k, as interpreted in Riegel v. Medtronic, because the device had received FDA premarket approval, which establishes federal requirements that state tort laws cannot differ from or add to.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In United States v. Benevento, the defendant, previously convicted of a sex offense in California, was indicted in federal court on charges including failure to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) after allegedly traveling interstate without updating his registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Benevento moved to dismiss Count II, arguing that SORNA was unconstitutional on multiple grounds, including violations of due process, the Commerce Clause, the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Tenth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the right to travel. The district court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and affirmed the denial of the motion. The court reasoned that SORNA's requirements were within Congress's Commerce Clause authority, did not constitute retroactive punishment, satisfied rational basis review under equal protection principles, and did not impermissibly delegate legislative power or violate other constitutional protections as applied to the defendant.

criminal lawfederal power

In Boney v. Valline, plaintiff Gayleen Boney sued tribal police officer Walter Valline for alleged violations of her First and Fourth Amendment rights in connection with her arrest and her son's death on the Walker River Paiute Tribal Reservation in 2004. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court reasoned that the officer was enforcing tribal law as a tribal officer rather than acting under color of federal law, and that special factors including tribal sovereignty and self-government counseled against extending a Bivens remedy to claims against tribal officers on tribal lands.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case is a CERCLA contribution action brought by current owners of the BMI Complex, a former magnesium production site in Nevada, against the United States and Atlantic Richfield (as successor to Anaconda) to recover cleanup costs for waste disposed during World War II operations. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' summary judgment motions on liability, ruling that the United States is liable as an owner and arranger of hazardous substances, that Atlantic Richfield is not liable on an alter ego theory, and that certain direct liability issues remain for trial. It further held that costs reimbursed by insurance are not recoverable but that plaintiffs' pre-insurance costs of $890,868 may be pursued, with allocation of shares among liable parties to occur at trial. The decisions rested on the historical record of federal ownership through DPC and RFC, contractor operations, and CERCLA's standards for responsible parties under sections 107 and 113.

environmentfederal power

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by abused and neglected children in the Clark County, Nevada foster care system against state and county officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations in the operation of the foster care system. The court addressed motions to partially dismiss the amended complaint, focusing on claims for procedural due process under the federal and Nevada constitutions and for breach of contract based on state plans tied to federal funding statutes. The court granted the motions and dismissed those claims, reasoning that plaintiffs failed to allege a valid state-created liberty interest for the due process claims and that the state plans did not constitute enforceable contracts allowing third-party beneficiary suits, particularly where no private cause of action existed under the underlying statutes and compliance was tied only to loss of federal funds. The decision builds on a prior order dismissing some claims and the governor as a defendant.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure