Roger D. Foley

This case involved two pilots who sued Key Airlines and several executives after their terminations, alleging that they were fired for organizing the Key Airlines Pilot Association union to negotiate better compensation and address safety concerns under the Railway Labor Act. The court found that the plaintiffs' at-will employment did not shield the defendants from liability for retaliatory discharge in violation of the RLA and state public policy, as the terminations were motivated by the pilots' union activities rather than other factors. Although no compensatory damages were awarded, the court imposed substantial punitive damages against the airline and named executives for their malicious conduct in intimidating pilots and suppressing union efforts. The core reasoning centered on evidence of threats, surveillance, and coordinated retaliation that violated federal labor protections for collective bargaining.

labor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a long-running contract dispute from 1980 between prime contractor Frank Briscoe Co. and Clark County over construction of a wastewater treatment plant, including counterclaims for breach of contract and subcontractor claims. Briscoe sought declaratory judgment to pursue recovery from the County on behalf of subcontractor Howard Electrical under a 1985 liquidating agreement in which Briscoe acknowledged liability for Howard's claims and agreed to remit a share of any recovery. The County moved for summary and declaratory judgment, arguing lack of standing and that the agreement did not permit such a representative suit. The court granted Briscoe's motion and denied the County's, reasoning that under precedents like Severin v. United States and related cases, a prime contractor may maintain an action for subcontractor damages if the subcontract or liquidating agreement does not fully release the prime from liability to the subcontractor.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from unpaid pension contributions owed by a subcontractor on a federal construction project at the Nevada Test Site, leading union trustees to obtain a judgment against the prime contractor Reeco and subcontractor SME under ERISA and state labor statutes. Reeco paid the judgment and pursued cross-claims and third-party claims against USG Interiors (successor by merger to an alleged joint venturer DAB) and surety INA on payment and performance bonds to recover the amount. The court addressed multiple summary judgment motions, including whether a joint venture existed, whether claims were barred by the Miller Act's one-year statute of limitations or state limitations periods, and whether amended pleadings against Interiors could relate back based on notice and merger successor liability. It examined bond applications, merger agreements under Ohio, Delaware, and Nevada law that preserve liabilities, and facts showing Interiors had prior knowledge of the litigation. The court noted that all parties agreed the issues could be resolved on the motions rather than at trial.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case concerned a former Caesars Palace dealer who sued the casino, its employees, and IRS officials after the casino complied with an IRS summons by providing names, addresses, and Social Security numbers of dealers, which the IRS used to identify and prosecute tax violations under a 1981 amnesty program. The plaintiff alleged violations of IRS summons procedures under 26 U.S.C. § 7609, RICO through mail and wire fraud, unauthorized disclosure of tax information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103, and Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that the summons sought employment records directly between the plaintiff and the summoned party, so § 7609(a) third-party notice rules did not apply, § 7609(f) judicial approval requirements were inapplicable, and no abuse of process or protectable interest supported the constitutional claims since no court enforcement proceeding occurred.

taxescriminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case involves Nevada ranchers (the Fallinis) who held BLM permits to install and maintain improvements at water sources on public grazing land for their cattle; they added highway guardrails at Deep Well to block wild horses (whose numbers had grown sharply after the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act) without first obtaining BLM approval, leading the BLM to cancel the permit and the IBLA to uphold that cancellation. The district court set aside the IBLA decision. The court reasoned that the agency action was arbitrary and capricious in its interpretation of the permit and failure to consider key facts, exceeded statutory authority because the Taylor Grazing Act and Wild Horses Act did not reserve or reallocate the state-law water rights at issue, and raised constitutional concerns regarding property rights.

environmentfederal powerproperty

The case involved consolidated lawsuits by 220 plaintiffs alleging that they suffered serious injuries from exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the Nevada Test Site during nuclear weapons tests conducted by the United States between 1951 and 1981. The plaintiffs brought negligence claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting failures such as inadequate monitoring of radiation levels, lack of protective measures, insufficient training and warnings, and continued exposure despite known risks. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The court denied the motion, holding that the exception does not shield the government from liability for breaching objective duties related to employee health and safety in the nuclear testing program, including duties to monitor, warn, train, and provide protective measures, as the FTCA does not exempt all aspects of such testing from tort liability.

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves claims by plaintiffs Dorothy Roberts and Louise Nunamaker against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries from radiation exposure following the unexpected venting of the Baneberry nuclear weapons test at the Nevada Test Site in 1970. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court addressed whether the discretionary function exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) barred the suit. The court held that the exception did not apply and that it had jurisdiction, because the government's negligence consisted of failing to prepare and implement specific written emergency plans and procedures mandated by Chapter 0544 of the AEC Manual and related operating procedures, such as evacuation, personnel accounting, radiation monitoring, and training. The court distinguished the case from precedents like In re Consolidated United States Atmospheric Testing Litigation, noting that here the safety requirements were mandatory operational standards rather than discretionary policy choices subordinating safety to national security objectives.

torts & liabilityfederal powerenvironment

This case involved former Shell Oil franchisees in Las Vegas whose stations were transferred to ARCO as part of a market exchange between the two companies, resulting in the termination of their franchises under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA). The dealers sued both Shell and ARCO, alleging that ARCO failed to offer nondiscriminatory franchise agreements in good faith in violation of PMPA section 2802(b)(2)(E) and that ARCO tortiously interfered with their Shell contracts. The court granted ARCO's motion for summary judgment in full, finding no genuine issue of material fact because ARCO's eventual three-year franchise offers met the statutory requirements of good faith and nondiscrimination, and any initial trial offers or internal documents did not demonstrate improper intent. Shell's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part on related PMPA and fraud claims. The decision rested on the absence of evidence creating triable issues under the summary judgment standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and the PMPA's provisions allowing market withdrawals via franchise transfers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Dole v. Local Union 226, the Secretary of Labor sought to void the May 1987 election of officers in a Las Vegas hotel and restaurant workers union local under Title IV of the LMRDA, alleging that the losing incumbent slate violated section 401(g) by using union business agents to campaign on union time and to gain access to restricted employer areas for campaigning. The case involved four competing slates, with the Arnold slate winning and the Secretary claiming that the incumbents' use of union resources may have affected the outcome. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court addressed whether the alleged conduct constituted prohibited expenditures of union funds, whether a prima facie showing of an effect on the election was made, and whether the union rebutted the inference of impact. The court found that the incumbents' actions violated the statute by providing unequal official union support and granted summary judgment declaring the election void and ordering a new election under the Secretary's supervision.

labor & employmentelections

The case concerned David Maynard, a hotel employee terminated in 1987 after his union's collective bargaining agreement had expired, who sued in state court for breach of an alleged individual employment contract and related state-law claims. The employer removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss, contending that the claims were preempted by the NLRA and LMRA and therefore arose under federal law. The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under section 301 of the LMRA because no collective bargaining agreement was in effect at the time of the termination, and that the NLRA did not completely preempt the state claims. It therefore denied the motion to dismiss and remanded the case to Nevada state court for further proceedings.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

In Mattingly v. United States, a former acting controller at NLV Corporation sued the IRS under 26 U.S.C. § 7422 after the agency assessed her personally for over $1.2 million in unpaid payroll taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 and withheld her small personal tax refund; the government filed a counterclaim seeking the reduced $26,437.48 assessment. The court entered judgment for Mattingly after the government conceded the case without conducting discovery and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. The court then awarded her attorneys’ fees and costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 as the prevailing party and imposed Rule 11 sanctions, including a $1,000 fine and public reprimand, because the government’s position lacked any reasonable basis in fact or law given that Mattingly had no authority over payments and the IRS had long possessed the relevant information.

taxesprocedurefederal power

The case concerned whether a homeowner's insurance policy issued by Allstate covered the parents of a minor who sexually molested a young child while babysitting, in light of an exclusion for bodily injury intentionally caused by an insured. The court denied Allstate's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the ambiguous exclusion requires proof of both intent to commit the act and intent to cause harm, and that intent to harm cannot be inferred as a matter of law from the act itself. Because a factfinder in the underlying state tort action could find no intent to harm, Allstate has a duty to defend the insureds under the policy.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved 37 male former dealers and floormen at Hilton Casinos, Inc., who alleged that their termination on September 3, 1983, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against them on the basis of sex. The court found that Hilton had discharged the plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) under both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The decision rested on statistical evidence showing that the replacements were disproportionately female compared to the applicant pool and that the terminations were not justified by business necessity. The court noted that Title VII protections extend equally to male employees and that the employer failed to rebut the presumption of discrimination. Damages were awarded based on amounts previously determined in related age discrimination and contract claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Carl Wesley Thomas, a former Nevada gaming licensee convicted of skimming-related felonies tied to organized crime, challenging the Nevada Gaming Commission's decision to place him on the state's casino Exclusion List under the Gaming Control Act. The Commission nominated and ultimately excluded Thomas based on his criminal convictions and history, after prior proceedings and stays. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the Commission acted within its broad statutory discretion to protect public confidence in gaming by excluding individuals who pose threats, and that Thomas failed to demonstrate any due process, equal protection, or other constitutional violations from the process, timing of nomination, or alleged selective enforcement.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a bankruptcy court judgment in favor of debtor Edith Jennings against lender Alexander Coblentz for $234,370.90 based on a claim of usurious interest on a pre-petition loan. After Coblentz filed a timely notice of appeal, procedural missteps occurred involving delayed notices, an objection to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, an attempted direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1293(b), and subsequent dismissals, leading Coblentz to move for reinstatement of the appeal in district court. The court analyzed the strict jurisdictional deadlines under Bankruptcy Rules 8002 and 9006, the effect of untimely objections to the BAP reference, the implicit repeal of direct appeal provisions, and whether statutory appeal rights could be waived in light of constitutional limits on non-Article III adjudication. It concluded that the original notice was timely and addressed the parties' attempts to stipulate around jurisdictional defects while emphasizing that lack of notice does not extend appeal periods.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a third-party claimant injured in a 1981 automobile accident who sued the at-fault driver's insurer after the insurer settled with another injured party for most of the $300,000 policy limit, leaving her with only about $62,500. She alleged that the insurer breached a fiduciary duty of good faith and fair dealing owed to her as a third-party beneficiary of the insurance contract. The federal district court, applying Nevada law in this diversity action, granted the insurer's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court reasoned that Nevada does not recognize a bad-faith tort claim by third-party claimants against insurers, because the implied covenant of good faith runs only to the insured due to the special relationship of reliance, which is absent in arm's-length dealings with third parties; even if the plaintiff were a contractual beneficiary, she could enforce only the policy terms themselves, not additional tort duties.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Alaska Pacific, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff mining company alleged that the Bureau of Land Management failed to timely record its notices of location for unpatented mining claims under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act by the October 22, 1979 deadline, leading to the claims' abandonment, and sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff did not file a required administrative claim with the agency within the two-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), whether measured from the 1979 deadline or the plaintiff's discovery of the issue in late 1982, with no grounds for tolling established.

federal powerpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Bernstein v. GTE Directories Corp., two Las Vegas attorneys sued GTE for omitting their names, listings, and display ads from the white and yellow pages of the 1984 and 1985 Centel telephone directories, seeking over $10,000 in damages for resulting financial losses. GTE moved for partial summary judgment to cap its liability at the amount the plaintiffs paid for the advertising, relying on a clause in the contract that limited damages for omissions or errors. The court granted the motion, holding the clause enforceable because it was written in bold, clear language on the reverse side of the agreement (with notice on the front), the plaintiffs were experienced attorneys presumed to understand the terms, the contract was not an unconscionable adhesion contract or against public policy, and it did not purport to immunize gross negligence or willful misconduct, consistent with the majority rule in other jurisdictions.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involves a contract dispute between Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. and Clark County, Nevada, over the construction of an advanced wastewater treatment plant as part of a pollution abatement plan. Briscoe sued the County for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and specific performance under the contract, prompting a counterclaim from the County for breach; the County later moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed all noncontracting county defendants with prejudice due to lack of privity. It denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the County, finding that Nevada's waiver of sovereign immunity permitted the contract action and that the discretionary function exception did not bar it, while also denying without prejudice a dismissal based on failure to comply with presentment of claims statutes, allowing Briscoe to present evidence on waiver, estoppel, substantial compliance, or constitutional grounds.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryenvironment

This case involved Shell Oil's decision to exit the Las Vegas motor fuel market by exchanging 15 service stations with Arco in return for stations in Chicago, and Arco's subsequent offers of new franchises to the existing Shell dealers. The dealers sued under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), seeking to enjoin the exchange on grounds that Shell's withdrawal notice and Arco's franchise offers failed to meet statutory requirements. The court denied the preliminary injunction, holding that Shell provided adequate 180-day written notice to dealers and the governor stating its good-faith market withdrawal, and that Arco's three-year franchise offers were non-discriminatory and equivalent to those given its existing franchisees. The court further found that the dealers had actual knowledge of the offers despite some refusals to accept delivery, and that no sufficiently serious questions existed on the merits to support injunctive relief under the PMPA's standards.

business & regulatoryfederal power