This case involves limousine drivers suing their employers, Bell Trans and related companies, for failing to pay wages for time spent preparing, waiting with, and washing limousines under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Nevada state law. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the FLSA claims because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants knew about changes in the law that made limousine drivers non-exempt from overtime and minimum wage requirements after August 2005. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' motion for summary judgment on state law claims as it was filed after the deadline without an extension, and thus struck that motion.
This case concerned the distribution of $23,333 remaining from a $35,000 underinsured motorist insurance policy after a fatal pedestrian accident in which Medicare had paid $10,070.22 for the decedent's medical treatment. The decedent's widow claimed the funds under Nevada's wrongful death statute, while the Department of Health and Human Services sought full reimbursement under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The court granted summary judgment to the Department, awarding it the full amount paid by Medicare and the balance to the widow. The core reasoning was that the MSP statute and its implementing regulations give Medicare a primary right to recover conditional payments from third-party insurance proceeds, consistent with the Act's purpose of minimizing Medicare expenditures, as interpreted in Zinman v. Shalala and related precedents.
This case involves a commercial property owner suing former tenants for unpaid rent under lease agreements and a collection agency along with its employees for fraudulently entering into release agreements with the tenants without authorization, retaining the settlement funds. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, denying the tenants' motion due to factual disputes regarding the agency's apparent authority, granting partial summary judgment finding no actual authority for the agency to bind the owner, and dismissing certain claims such as RICO, unjust enrichment, and intentional misrepresentation against the individual defendants while allowing amendment on the RICO claim. The reasoning centered on lack of actual or apparent authority for the fraudulent releases, insufficient allegations for some tort claims, and jurisdictional issues resolved in favor of the court having personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants.
This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's sanctions order in a Chapter 13 proceeding. After the debtor filed for bankruptcy protection, the creditor sought and obtained relief from the automatic stay on the debtor's home but then foreclosed on the property even after the stay was orally reinstated by the court. The bankruptcy court found that the creditor had acted in bad faith by pursuing foreclosure despite knowing the debtor was current on payments and had violated Rule 9011, awarding $80,000 in emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees plus return of the property. The district court affirmed the findings of a stay violation and the emotional distress and punitive damages awards but reversed the attorney's fees portion and remanded for a determination of actual damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) or proper application of Rule 9011.
In Quiroga v. Chen, the plaintiff filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the scheduled foreclosure sale of his Las Vegas property, which stemmed from a 2005 Chapter 13 bankruptcy case where the automatic stay was terminated by the bankruptcy court in 2007. The district court denied both motions after applying the Winter standard for injunctive relief, concluding that the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his claims challenging the defendants' authority to foreclose or compliance with Nevada foreclosure statutes. The court noted that the plaintiff had not prosecuted his prior appeal of the bankruptcy ruling and provided no evidence contradicting the bankruptcy court's order permitting foreclosure, even though factors like irreparable harm might otherwise favor relief.
The case arose after Theodore Kennedy's remains were accidentally cremated by Palm Mortuary (which later settled) instead of being buried as his family had arranged and expressly requested through Carriage Cemetery Services. The surviving family members sued Carriage on multiple claims including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unjust enrichment. On Carriage's motion for partial summary judgment, the court granted the motion as to the claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, IIED, and NIED, but denied it as to negligent misrepresentation and punitive damages. The rulings rested on Nevada precedents requiring particular elements (such as physical manifestation of harm for standalone emotional-distress claims or clear-and-convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice for punitives) that were not satisfied on the record for the dismissed claims.
This case involved AAA Nevada Insurance Company seeking declaratory relief after its insured, Vinh Chau, was involved in a fatal car accident; the claimants' counsel made a time-limited policy-limits settlement demand that AAA could not fully meet due to missing information on heirs and liens, leading the claimants to later allege bad faith and pursue a larger wrongful death judgment. The court granted AAA's motion for summary judgment, fixing the insurer's liability at the $100,000 per-person policy limit and holding that AAA's failure to settle within the demanded timeframe did not constitute bad faith under Nevada law. The core reasoning was that the demand letter imposed unreasonable conditions and time constraints, AAA made reasonable efforts to respond and clarify, and the interveners failed to raise any genuine dispute of material fact regarding a lack of reasonable basis for AAA's actions. The court also denied a Rule 56(f) continuance and reaffirmed its jurisdiction.
The case involved union trust funds suing a property owner (Fiesta Palms) for delinquent contributions owed by a general contractor and subcontractor on a construction project at the Palms Casino Resort, based on Nevada Revised Statute § 608.150. The court granted the property owner's motion to dismiss, holding that the owner was not liable because it did not qualify as a "contractor" under NRS § 624.020. The reasoning was that the complaint described a standard owner-general contractor relationship, with no allegations that the owner directly managed construction, hired subcontractors, or obtained permits, unlike cases where owners acted as their own contractors.
This case involves a dispute over whether Encore Productions, Inc. failed to make required contributions to employee benefit trust funds established under a collective bargaining agreement with a union local. The trust funds' trustees sued Encore under ERISA, alleging that the company was obligated by the CBA and incorporated trust agreements to contribute on behalf of covered employees but did not do so. Encore moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to meet federal pleading standards under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) as interpreted in Twombly and Iqbal. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint's allegations—detailing the CBA's existence, its incorporation of the trust agreements, the resulting contribution obligations, and the alleged failure to contribute—were factually sufficient to state a plausible claim and provide fair notice to the defendant.
