Larry R. Hicks

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.

labor & employmentfederal power

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.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

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.

federal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Duramed Pharmaceuticals sued Watson Laboratories for infringing its U.S. Patent No. 7,320,969 on an extended contraceptive regimen marketed as Seasonique, which replaces the traditional hormone-free placebo period with seven days of low-dose estrogen. Watson had stipulated to infringement but defended on the ground that the patent was obvious in light of prior art and expert testimony about earlier medical practices. The court granted Duramed's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Watson failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the field would have had reason to modify the prior art to add unopposed estrogen, and it excluded the testimony of Watson's experts because they were not ordinary practitioners and their accounts lacked sufficient corroboration. The court therefore held the patent valid as a matter of law and entered judgment for Duramed.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case was a class action brought by individuals who rented cars from Hertz at Nevada airports, alleging that the company's practice of charging separate 'concession recovery fees' (to recoup payments to airports) violated Nevada Revised Statutes section 482.31575, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and constituted unjust enrichment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with Hertz arguing that the voluntary payment doctrine barred the claims and that its disclosures to customers were sufficient. The court addressed the law-of-the-case doctrine but declined to reconsider its earlier interpretation of the statute, finding that the law prohibits rental companies from imposing concession fees as separate surcharges rather than incorporating them into the base rate, regardless of disclosure. The court noted that amendments to the statute had since made the challenged conduct permissible, rendering injunctive relief inappropriate.

business & regulatory

This case is an employment discrimination dispute in which plaintiff Danita Cohen-Breen, a former news anchor at a television station owned by defendant Gray Television Group, alleged that she was harassed, demoted from her anchor position, and subjected to different working conditions because of her Jewish religion, in violation of Title VII and Nevada law; she also asserted claims for retaliation and breach of her employment contract regarding work hours and position changes. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying the plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment. On the hostile work environment claim, the court found no genuine issues of material fact supporting the allegation. Issues of fact remained concerning the discrimination, retaliation, and contract claims, precluding summary judgment on those counts.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved Donovan Paddy, a former employee of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, who sued individual tribal officials in federal court alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act, interference with contractual relations, and civil conspiracy after his termination for taking medical leave. Paddy had previously filed and voluntarily dismissed a similar action in tribal court. The court stayed the federal proceedings, holding that Paddy's long-term employment with the tribe created a consensual relationship sufficient to support colorable tribal court jurisdiction under the first exception in Montana v. United States. Principles of comity therefore required Paddy to exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court, and the defendants' motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds was denied without prejudice.

labor & employmentprocedurecivil rights

In this federal habeas corpus case, Petitioner Calvin, convicted in Nevada state court of two counts of first-degree murder pursuant to a plea agreement, challenged his convictions on multiple grounds including due process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that parts of Grounds 1 and 2, along with all of Grounds 4 and 5 in the amended petition, were unexhausted because the claims had not been fairly presented to the Nevada Supreme Court in the proper procedural manner. Relying on precedents like Rose v. Lundy and Duncan v. Henry, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing the unexhausted due process claim in Ground 1 and Ground 2, while allowing the petitioner 30 days to either dismiss the remaining unexhausted grounds and proceed on exhausted claims or voluntarily dismiss the entire petition to return to state court for exhaustion; no stay was granted.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In this case, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought a civil enforcement action against eleven individuals and three companies, including defendants John Edwards, Daryl Anderson, and Kathleen and Anthony Tomasso, alleging they assisted CMKM Diamonds in fraudulently issuing and selling hundreds of billions of shares of unregistered stock, which caused 40,000 investors to lose $64.2 million. The defendants had entered consent decrees admitting violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act for unregistered offers and sales of securities, stipulating to the complaint's facts for purposes of determining remedies. The court granted the Commission's motions for summary judgment, ordering disgorgement of ill-gotten gains (with prejudgment interest) and civil penalties against each defendant based on the amounts they personally received from the scheme. The core reasoning was that the consent decrees established liability, leaving only the calculation of equitable remedies for the court, which possesses broad authority to fashion appropriate relief once securities law violations are found.

business & regulatory

The case involves SalesTraq America suing Joseph Zyskowski and devMarketing, Inc. for copyright infringement of a compiled database of Las Vegas residential property details, along with related state law claims and a federal computer fraud claim. The court addressed a motion to dismiss, accepting the complaint's facts as true under Rule 8 pleading standards. It denied dismissal of the copyright infringement claim, finding the database included copyrightable expression and registration requirements were satisfied, and also denied dismissal of the state claims as not preempted by federal copyright law and sufficiently pleaded. The court granted dismissal of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim because the allegations did not show unauthorized access to restricted information.

propertyprocedure

This case involved prisoners and their family members suing Nevada Department of Corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The claims centered on the censorship and non-delivery of mail to an inmate, lack of notice and appeal opportunities, and retaliation for filing grievances. The U.S. District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts while denying the plaintiffs' partial summary judgment motion. The court found no genuine issues of material fact indicating constitutional violations in the mail handling procedures or grievance processes, including that returns of mail for noticeable defects did not require the same due process as content-based withholding.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between George Chachas, owner of the Town & Country Motel and former mayor of Ely, Nevada, and the City of Ely over unpaid utility fees for water, sewer, and landfill services, along with related ethics violations. After the city obtained a default judgment for the fees and the Nevada Commission on Ethics found that Chachas had willfully violated state ethics laws by failing to disclose his ownership interest and acting against the city's collection efforts, Chachas filed suit alleging due process and equal protection violations, defamation, conspiracy, and other claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Chachas's counter-motion, concluding there were no genuine issues of material fact because the utility rates were set by city ordinance, Chachas had not appealed the prior judgments or ethics decision, the city's statements were privileged, and he failed to show evidence supporting his constitutional or tort claims. The court also denied requests for injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a pilot for the Nevada Division of Forestry who sued state officials after his termination, claiming it was retaliation for complaining that planned cuts to pilot staffing and hours endangered public safety and fire suppression capabilities. Plaintiff alleged a violation of his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that although the speech touched on matters of public concern, it was not a substantial or motivating factor in the termination decision. Instead, the court found the action stemmed from the plaintiff's aggressive conduct toward federal inspectors and discrepancies uncovered in his training and overtime records during the ensuing investigation.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a resident of the Incline Village General Improvement District challenging an ordinance and 1968 restrictive covenant that limits access to certain IVGID-owned beaches on Lake Tahoe to property owners within the district's 1968 boundaries, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. IVGID moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to join necessary parties, while the plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction and leave to amend. The court determined it has jurisdiction over the ripe constitutional claims but held that the 1968 property owners are required parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) because their interests in the restrictive covenant would be impaired by a judgment in their absence, and joinder is feasible. The court reasoned that these owners hold legally protected interests tied to the beaches' use and that complete relief could not be accorded without them, though it deferred full analysis of additional Rule 19 factors pending notice to the owners.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case concerns challenges by several Western Shoshone tribes and environmental groups to the Bureau of Land Management's approval of Barrick Cortez's Cortez Hills Expansion Project, a large-scale open-pit gold mining operation on public lands in Nevada that would disturb thousands of acres including areas around Mt. Tenabo. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the project violated environmental statutes as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by burdening their religious practices at sacred sites. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction after a hearing, concluding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. It also denied the intervenor's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The reasoning focused on the scope of RFRA protections, the adequacy of BLM's mitigation measures for sacred sites, and the balance of harms and public interest in the project.

environmentreligious libertycivil rights

This case involved a trademark dilution dispute in which Visa International Service Association sued JSL Corporation over its use of the EVISA mark, alleging it diluted the famous VISA mark under federal law. After multiple summary judgment rulings and Ninth Circuit remands prompted by the Supreme Court's Moseley decision requiring actual dilution and the subsequent enactment of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA), the district court considered Visa's motion for relief from its prior judgment. The court granted the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), determining that the intervening change in law made continued application of the earlier judgment inequitable. It then applied the TDRA standard, found that Visa had established dilution by blurring as a matter of law based on evidence of association and impairment of distinctiveness, and entered summary judgment in Visa's favor while dismissing other claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Borowy, the defendant moved to suppress evidence seized from his computer pursuant to a search warrant, contending that an FBI agent's warrantless access to files via the Limewire peer-to-peer network violated the Fourth Amendment. The court denied the motion, ruling that the agent’s conduct did not constitute a search because Borowy had no legitimate expectation of privacy in files he made publicly available on the network. The court reasoned that Borowy failed to show a subjective expectation of privacy, as any Limewire user could access the files, and that any such expectation would be objectively unreasonable given the open nature of P2P sharing. The court further held that the warrant affidavit contained no material misrepresentations warranting a Franks hearing and that probable cause existed based on the filenames alone.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure