David Warner Hagen

The case concerned claims by a fair housing organization that developer ERGS, Inc. violated the Fair Housing Act by constructing the Sierra Sage apartments without required accessibility features for disabled persons. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred under the FHA's two-year statute of limitations. The court denied the motion, finding a triable issue as to whether the alleged violations formed part of a continuing discriminatory practice that extended into the limitations period, given the seamless timing and similar features of ERGS's subsequent Silver Lake development, which was still under construction when suit was filed. The court reasoned that ERGS's direct involvement in both projects, unlike the prior dismissal of claims against a separate entity, allowed the continuing violation doctrine to apply and prevent the limitations period from running.

civil rightsprocedure

This case arose from an IRS levy on funds plaintiff Mallard Automotive Group owed to a third party as nominee for taxpayer David Smith, followed by a settlement agreement in which plaintiff deposited $1 million and provided a $200,000 letter of credit. Plaintiff asserted claims for wrongful levy under 26 U.S.C. § 7426, refund under § 7422, and contract-based claims, but conceded the latter two belonged in the Court of Federal Claims. The court initially dismissed the wrongful levy count for failure to meet the nine-month statute of limitations under 26 U.S.C. § 6532(c), then on reconsideration granted the motion but upheld dismissal, holding that the dispute was at its core a contract interpretation issue governed by the settlement agreement and thus subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims rather than an independent tax claim in district court. The final order granted reconsideration yet dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

Plaintiff Steven White, an artist who sells paintings with environmental and Native American themes in public spaces, sued the City of Sparks under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the city's roadway and sidewalk vendor licensing ordinance (SMC §§ 5.59 et seq.) violates his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by imposing a prior restraint, being vague and overbroad, and restricting protected speech. The city countered that the provisions are valid time, place, and manner restrictions that do not apply to mere display of art and that White lacked standing for an as-applied challenge because he never applied for a license. The court analyzed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, concluding that visual artistic expression qualifies as protected speech under the First Amendment and that the city's policy exempting such speech from sales bans in parks must be assessed under intermediate scrutiny to determine if the restrictions are narrowly tailored to significant government interests and leave open ample alternative channels, while noting it was not evaluating the underlying ordinance in isolation.

free speechcivil rights

This case involved a challenge to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) decision to dispose of over 6,000 acres of public land in southeastern Lincoln County, Nevada, under the Lincoln County Land Act of 2000, to allow for expansion by the city of Mesquite. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment arguing that BLM's environmental assessment was inadequate under NEPA because it failed to fully analyze cumulative impacts on endangered species habitat, water resources in the Virgin River, air quality, and other reasonably foreseeable projects such as a power plant. BLM cross-moved for summary judgment, defending its consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, biological opinion, and environmental review as sufficient. The court reviewed the administrative record to assess compliance with NEPA's requirements for evaluating environmental effects before approving the land privatization.

environmentfederal powerproperty

In this case, plaintiffs John and Pamela Nichols, along with their insurer State Farm, sued Mayflower Transit and its agent Olsen & Fielding after their household goods were destroyed in a trailer fire during an interstate shipment from California to Nevada, bringing state-law claims including breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation, and unfair claims practices. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all state claims and dismissed Olsen & Fielding as a party. It held that the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 14706, completely preempts state-law causes of action for loss or damage to goods in interstate commerce. The core reasoning relied on Supreme Court precedent that Congress enacted the Amendment to establish uniform national rules governing carrier liability under bills of lading, thereby superseding all state regulations on the subject, and on the principle that a disclosed agent of the carrier has no independent liability under the federal statute.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case arose from the bankruptcy of Pegasus Gold Corporation and its affiliates, which had mining operations in Montana subject to the state's Metal Mine Reclamation Act. DEQ filed claims in the bankruptcy and entered into the Zortman Agreement and confirmed reorganization Plan that created RSC to perform interim reclamation work at the Zortman sites. After disputes led to termination of RSC's contract and hiring of Spectrum, the trustee and RSC sued DEQ and Spectrum for breach of the agreements, fraud, interference, and related claims. The bankruptcy court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, and the district court affirmed. The court held that DEQ waived Eleventh Amendment immunity through its extensive participation in the bankruptcy proceedings and the close connection between the claims and the confirmed Plan.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal powerprocedure

Plaintiff Inter-County Title Co. sued defendants First American Title Company of Nevada, Founders Title Company of Nevada, and Data Trace Information Services LLC under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging restraint of trade and monopolization by denying access to a shared database system (the "Back Plant") that compiles public title records for efficient retrieval. Defendants had offered access for a price, but the parties could not agree, and plaintiff claimed the system was an essential facility. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. The core reasoning was that the database did not qualify as an essential facility under Section 2 because plaintiff had competed successfully without full access to it and there was no evidence that lack of access eliminated competition or caused antitrust injury under the rule-of-reason analysis required for the Section 1 claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

General Motors sued Let's Make a Deal, a used car dealership in Reno, Nevada, alleging that the defendants were producing and selling aftermarket car kits copying the distinctive exterior design, grill, and trademarks of Hummer vehicles, including use of similar domain names like www.hmmmv.com, in violation of federal trademark and trade dress laws under the Lanham Act as well as common law. The district court first confirmed that the defendants received adequate notice of the preliminary injunction proceedings under Rule 65. It then granted GM's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits based on the kits' confusing similarity to GM's registered marks and unregistered trade dress, a presumption of irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities favored GM, while ordering a $100,000 bond.

business & regulatory

The case involved a facial challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to Nevada Revised Statute 199.325, which criminalizes knowingly filing false allegations of misconduct against a peace officer as a misdemeanor. Plaintiffs, including individuals and the ACLU of Nevada, argued that the statute violated the First Amendment by chilling protected speech. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion, holding that the statute is an impermissible content-based regulation. The reasoning centered on the statute's overbreadth, its failure to be narrowly tailored compared to alternatives like requiring sworn reports subject to perjury penalties, and the standing of plaintiffs to raise overbreadth claims in the First Amendment context.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned a defendant charged with the petty offense of using range improvements without Bureau of Land Management authorization after he had a specialist insert a measuring tube into a dormant well on grazing land to assess its water capacity, without prior BLM approval. The magistrate judge found the defendant guilty and imposed a $100 fine, concluding that the testing amounted to unauthorized use of the well. On appeal, the district court vacated the conviction, holding that the regulation's prohibition on "using" range improvements did not cover testing capacity because "use" means putting the improvement into operation as originally intended, and testing was not equivalent in kind to the other prohibited acts listed in the rule under the principle of ejusdem generis.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case arose from a 1995 accident in the valet parking area of the MGM Grand Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, where a vehicle driven by third-party defendant Gerald Machowsky suddenly accelerated after being returned by hotel valets with the engine running, pinning plaintiff Louise Kusmirek between two cars and causing severe leg injuries that required amputation. Kusmirek sued MGM Grand for negligence, alleging the hotel breached its duty by delivering the running vehicle, returning it in an unsafe area amid heavy traffic, and failing to provide adequate supervision of pedestrians and vehicles. The district court granted MGM's motion for summary judgment, holding that Nevada negligence law required proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages, but that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the hotel's alleged breaches were the proximate cause of her injuries. The court reasoned that the accident resulted from the driver's misapplication of the accelerator rather than any vehicle malfunction or the hotel's procedures, and that the suggested safety measures either would not have prevented the harm or imposed an unreasonable burden on the hotel.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is an appeal by the United States from three orders of the bankruptcy court in an adversary proceeding initiated by debtor Zdenek Kieslich to determine his federal income tax liability for 1984 and 1985, stemming from the reporting of embezzled funds and related deductions. The bankruptcy court had ruled on the proper characterization of the income, the sufficiency of an IRS notice as a proof of claim, the burden of proof, and its own retention of jurisdiction after the underlying Chapter 7 bankruptcy case closed in 1992. On appeal, the district court reviewed the retention of jurisdiction for abuse of discretion and found that, although jurisdiction properly existed when the adversary proceeding was filed, the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by retaining it after closure because the proceeding was no longer sufficiently related to the bankruptcy estate and considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weighed against continued exercise of jurisdiction. The court therefore remanded with instructions to vacate the three orders and dismiss the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

taxesprocedurefederal power

The case involved prisoners at Ely State Prison who sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive use of force and inadequate mental health services. After the lawsuit prompted changes to the prison's use-of-force and mental health policies, the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal, and the court previously ruled that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties eligible for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Defendants moved for reconsideration, arguing that fees required a formal finding of constitutional violations, but the court denied the motion and awarded fees and costs. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs' suit was the catalyst for the policy changes, as shown by admissions from prison officials and experts about prior unconstitutional conditions and statistics showing sharp drops in force incidents after the filing. The court also addressed the reasonableness of specific fee calculations, including adjustments under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned plaintiffs' continued occupancy of federal land near Carson City, Nevada, under an unpatented placer mining claim that had been declared null and void by the Interior Board of Land Appeals for lack of a valuable mineral deposit, along with related trespass findings. The United States moved for summary judgment on its counterclaims seeking eviction, removal of structures, site reclamation, and damages, while plaintiffs cross-moved on their complaint challenging the government's authority over the land. The court granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiffs', holding that the complaint was time-barred by the statute of limitations and that no genuine issues of material fact existed because the United States owns the land, the Bureau of Land Management has authority to manage it and determine mining claim validity, and the administrative rulings were final. The order requires plaintiffs to vacate within 60 days, remove personal property, remediate the site, and pay fair market rental value and costs, with provisions for the United States to act if they fail to comply.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Evelyn Collins seeking additional payments under her auto insurance policy from Farmers Insurance Exchange after a 1996 accident in which she was injured as a passenger in her daughter's car. Farmers paid the statutory minimum under the underinsured motorist coverage based on the policy's "owned but uninsured" exclusion for the daughter's separately insured vehicle and limited medical expense coverage to services within two years of the accident. The court granted summary judgment to Farmers, holding that the exclusion was valid and applied because the vehicles had separate policies, that the delayed family discount did not create estoppel since there was no intent to induce reliance or actual detrimental reliance, and that the two-year medical limit was enforceable, with the plaintiff having abandoned her medical claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Sam Culbertson, who sued defendants including Freightliner Corp. after allegedly injuring his back when the air-ride seat in his tractor bottomed out on an uneven road, claiming design defects, failure to warn, and related loss of consortium under theories of strict products liability and negligence. The court reviewed objections to a magistrate judge's report on summary judgment motions and a motion to exclude expert testimony from mechanical engineer Lindley Manning, the sole evidence supporting the remaining claims. Applying standards from Daubert and Kumho Tire, the court excluded Manning's testimony as unreliable because it was speculative, lacked testing, peer review, data, or industry standards, and amounted to unverified assumptions about seat failure and possible design improvements. With no admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact, the court granted summary judgment to all defendants on every claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Pesci v. Internal Revenue Service, plaintiff Pesci, an employee of the Las Vegas Valley Water District, submitted a W-4 form claiming exempt status from federal income tax withholding and an affidavit of exemption, but the IRS directed the employer via letters to disregard the form and withhold taxes as if Pesci claimed zero allowances, resulting in approximately $24,000 being withheld. Pesci sued both the Water District defendants and federal defendants (including the IRS and individual IRS employees), asserting claims to quiet title to the withheld money, wrongful seizure, conversion, civil rights violations, and racketeering violations. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) with prejudice, holding that the claims against the employer were barred because federal law shields employers from liability for complying with IRS withholding directives and that the suit against the federal defendants was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a), as it sought to restrain tax collection, along with sovereign immunity and failure to state viable claims.

taxesfederal powercivil rights

The case involved former Virgin Valley High School volleyball coach Anita Riggs suing the Clark County School District and several officials for defamation based on statements made to parents explaining her March 1997 termination. The defendants moved to dismiss the claim, arguing the statements were nonactionable opinions. The court denied the motion in part, holding that two of the three statements could imply undisclosed false facts about the reasons for her firing and were therefore potentially defamatory under Nevada law. It applied the standard from Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. that statements implying assertions of objective fact are actionable even if phrased as opinions, while treating one statement as protected opinion.

torts & liability

This case involves a dispute between the surviving spouse of John Kumarelas, a Nevada resident, and his sister, a California resident, over amendments to a living trust executed in Nevada, with allegations that later amendments resulted from undue influence, coercion, and lack of capacity while the decedent was hospitalized in California. The defendant moved to dismiss the removed diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) or, alternatively, to dismiss or transfer for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had established sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction based on the trust's creation and execution in Nevada and the defendant's role as co-trustee, and that venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) for removed actions regardless of the general venue statute. The denial was without prejudice to a future motion for discretionary transfer under § 1404(a).

procedurefamily lawproperty

In Atilano v. United States, plaintiff Raymond Atilano, appearing pro se as beneficiary of the Reggie Thoras Trust, sued to quiet title under 28 U.S.C. § 2410 and for wrongful levy under 26 U.S.C. § 7426 after the IRS placed a federal tax lien on property transferred to the Trust and sold it at auction to satisfy the tax liability of plaintiff's son, Ricardo Atilano, treating the Trust as his nominee. The court dismissed the quiet title claims and any claim against the IRS as a separate party, holding that 26 U.S.C. § 7426 provides the exclusive remedy for a non-taxpayer asserting an interest in property subject to levy. It denied without prejudice the motion to dismiss the wrongful levy claim, directing further briefing on whether the action was timely under the statute of limitations in 26 U.S.C. § 6532(c) and on the plaintiff's standing given the Trust's structure and the role of the trustee.

taxespropertyprocedurefederal power