James C. Mahan

The case concerned whether JPM Construction, LLC, as a general contractor, could be held liable for unpaid fringe benefit contributions owed by its subcontractor Thornton Concrete Pumping, Inc. to the plaintiff employee benefit trusts under a collective bargaining agreement with the Operating Engineers union. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied JPM's cross-motion, awarding the trusts $4,148.98 in contributions, liquidated damages, and interest (plus attorney fees and costs) for work Thornton performed on JPM projects between 2009 and 2010. The core reasoning was that NRS 608.150 imposes direct liability on contractors for subcontractors' delinquent contributions to protect covered workers, that JPM's subcontracting triggered this obligation, and that no prior notice to JPM was required under Nevada precedent.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Charles Anthony Rader, Jr., who sued manufacturers and distributors of the generic drug Propofol after receiving notice of potential exposure to bloodborne pathogens from reused vials at an endoscopy center; he sought reimbursement for the procedure and subsequent testing on behalf of a class, alleging strict product liability, breach of implied warranty, negligence, violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and punitive damages. The products defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of federal preemption and that FDA-approved warnings were adequate as a matter of law, while the plaintiff filed a counter-motion. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied in part and granted in part the plaintiff's motion, ruling that federal law does not preempt state failure-to-warn claims against generic manufacturers and that FDA approval of the label does not conclusively bar recovery, though evidence of regulatory compliance may be presented at trial.

torts & liabilityhealthcarebusiness & regulatory

In Angle v. Miller, plaintiffs brought a facial challenge to Nevada’s All Congressional Districts Rule, which requires petition signatures for statewide ballot initiatives to be gathered from all three congressional districts, as well as to related circulator affidavit requirements, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of State on the equal protection and First Amendment claims regarding the All Districts Rule, finding that the rule imposes only a minimal, nondiscriminatory burden because the districts have roughly equal populations and advances the state’s interest in ensuring broad statewide support without diluting votes. It also held that the affidavit regulation (NAC 295.020) is invalid to the extent it requires circulators to attest to facts beyond those specified in the governing statute (NRS 295.0575), while noting that the constitutional affidavit provision had already been struck down by the Nevada Supreme Court.

electionsfree speechcivil rights

In this bankruptcy appeal, MERS sought relief from the automatic stay to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure on the debtors' real property, filing as nominee for the lender Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, ruling that MERS lacked standing as a real party in interest because it was not the holder of the promissory note and provided no evidence of authority from the note's holder. On appeal, the district court affirmed the denial but on alternative grounds under the Local Rules of Practice for Nevada, which require a party seeking to lift the stay to certify a sincere effort to negotiate with the debtor. The court reasoned that MERS could not comply with this requirement in a meaningful way because it was unable to produce the note or written authority from the note holder to alter or compromise the obligation.

propertyprocedure

This case concerns a disability insurance claim denial by defendants UnumProvident and Paul Revere Life Insurance against plaintiff Merrick, where the jury awarded punitive damages for bad-faith practices. In ruling on the defendants' post-trial motion for a new trial, remittitur, or reduction of those damages, the court made detailed findings that the companies had implemented a deliberate claims-management scheme targeting subjective conditions such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. The scheme included tactics like requiring objective medical proof not stated in the policies, limiting independent medical exams, using round-table reviews with destroyed records, shifting the investigation burden to insureds, and over-relying on in-house doctors. The court held that the evidence, including internal documents and witness testimony, clearly and convincingly established a conscious disregard of policyholders' rights, supporting the punitive awards as proportionate to the defendants' net worth and consistent with due-process limits. The opinion therefore upheld the jury's punitive verdicts while denying the requested relief.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved a challenge by the ACLU and individual plaintiffs to two Nevada laws, A.B. 579 and S.B. 471, which expanded sex offender registration, notification, GPS monitoring, and residency restrictions and applied them retroactively to offenses dating back decades, including minor ones. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and converted a preliminary injunction into a permanent one barring enforcement of the laws. The core reasoning was that the statutes automatically reclassified offenders based solely on their original crime without individualized assessments or any procedural protections to challenge the classification, effectively imposing new punishments years after the fact in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, Double Jeopardy Clause, Contracts Clause, and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the government's objection to a magistrate judge's order in a multi-defendant criminal prosecution requiring prosecutors to disclose before trial all evidence or information known to them that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offenses charged, with such disclosures due no later than 60 days prior to trial. The district court affirmed the order after de novo review. The court held that while Brady v. Maryland and its progeny impose a constitutional duty only to disclose material exculpatory evidence (with materiality assessed in a post-trial context to determine if a different outcome was reasonably probable), prosecutors have broader independent obligations under rules of professional conduct, such as Nevada Supreme Court Rule 179(4) adopted via local rule, to make timely disclosure of all such evidence regardless of materiality; the 60-day deadline was set to facilitate orderly preparation given the case's complexity.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge by the Council of Insurance Agents + Brokers and nonresident insurance broker Rebecca Restrepo to Nevada's countersignature statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 680A.300), which required nonresident agents licensed in the state to involve a resident agent in placing insurance and to share a substantial portion of the premiums. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court first determined that both plaintiffs had standing to sue, as Restrepo had suffered economic injury and the Council represented injured members. On the merits, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the statute drew an impermissible distinction between resident and nonresident licensees with no legitimate rational basis, as its sole purpose was to protect the financial interests of in-state agents. The court declared the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement by the Nevada Commissioner of Insurance.

business & regulatorycivil rights