This case is a USERRA action brought by the United States on behalf of Arthur Ingram, alleging that the State of Nevada and the Controller's office failed to promptly reemploy him as Chief Deputy Controller upon his return from military service and retaliated against him by withdrawing a job offer and terminating his employment after he filed a DOL complaint. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, interpreting the statute's reemployment provisions and exemptions. It held that the changed-circumstances exemption does not apply because any lack of qualifications for the original position triggers the statute's order of priority for alternative positions rather than allowing denial of reemployment altogether, and that the exemption is assessed from the pre-deployment perspective rather than based on later events or expectations. The court also found related Tenth Amendment arguments moot in light of its ruling limiting reemployment eligibility to positions within the Controller's office.
The case involved plaintiff Jeffrey Herson, who operates billboards and sought to erect new permanent structures in Reno to display political speech, challenging the city's off-site sign ban and related permitting procedures under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Herson did not apply for any permits but instead filed suit after being informed that new billboards have been banned since a 2000 voter initiative. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that Herson lacked Article III standing because he failed to demonstrate a concrete, imminent injury in fact, as his plans were vague, conditional, and he had taken no steps requiring the city to enforce or refuse the ordinances. The court further found no standing for prior restraint claims regarding licensing procedures, as the underlying sign ban would independently bar approval regardless of any procedural changes.
The case involved a dispute over a life insurance policy under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program administered by MetLife. The plaintiff, as beneficiary, alleged that MetLife breached the contract by establishing a low-interest Total Control Account for the death benefits instead of paying a lump sum, contrary to the policy terms. The court denied MetLife's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim, finding that the policy language did not clearly authorize MetLife to unilaterally create such an account and that the plaintiff had plausibly stated a claim under Nevada contract law. The court also denied related motions to supplement and file a sur-reply, as the dismissal motion was based solely on the complaint allegations.
In Pacquiao v. Mayweather, professional boxer Emmanuel Pacquiao sued Floyd Mayweather Jr. and associated defendants for defamation per se after they publicly accused him of using performance-enhancing drugs following failed negotiations for a boxing match. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motions, finding that the allegations adequately stated the required elements of a defamation claim under Nevada law, including that the statements were factual and made with malice, and that the conspiracy allegations were sufficient in context to support the claim.
In Sercu v. Laboratory Corporation of America, plaintiffs Karen and Dana Sercu sued LabCorp alleging that the lab's failure to promptly cool blood samples led to erroneous high ammonia readings, a misdiagnosis of Hyperammonemia, and treatment with lactulose that worsened Karen's IBS. LabCorp moved for summary judgment on the claims of negligence per se, ordinary negligence, and punitive damages. The court granted the motion on negligence per se because the plaintiffs identified no statute that was violated. It denied summary judgment on the negligence claim, holding that the record raised triable issues on both actual and proximate causation under Nevada law, and denied it on punitive damages because evidence could support a finding that LabCorp consciously disregarded its own quality-control policies.
This case concerned a dispute over the distribution of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance benefits after a Marine was killed in Iraq, where the plaintiff alleged her ex-husband forged beneficiary forms to claim the full payout from insurer Prudential, leaving her with nothing. The plaintiff sued Prudential in state court under Nevada law for negligence, negligent performance of an undertaking, and constructive trust. The court granted Prudential’s motion to dismiss, ruling that the state-law claims were preempted and barred by federal statute 38 U.S.C. § 1970(b), which shields the insurer from liability once benefits are paid according to the forms on file. The court also denied the plaintiff’s motion to amend to add a federal claim, finding the amendment futile because the same statute expressly bars recovery against Prudential.
