District Court, D. Nevada — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Burns v. Erving
District Court, D. Nevada · 2011-08-26 · cited 1×
This case involved plaintiffs George Burns, Rodney Junior, and Brothers III Enterprises suing Julius Erving (Dr. J) and his company after Erving appeared in a Dr. Pepper commercial that plaintiffs claimed used an advertising idea they had pitched to him in 2007, involving the tagline 'Hey Doc, You're Going Down.' Plaintiffs asserted claims including breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, fraud, and misappropriation of ideas. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all remaining claims. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs provided no evidence beyond speculation that Erving or his associates used their idea rather than Deutsch LA independently creating the campaign, that no false representation occurred to support fraud, and that other claims lacked supporting evidence or required an underlying viable claim.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure
RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC
District Court, D. Nevada · 2011-06-14 · cited 5×
In Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, LLC, the plaintiff Righthaven sued Democratic Underground for copyright infringement after a user posted an excerpt from a Las Vegas Review-Journal article on the defendant's website, claiming ownership of the copyright through an assignment from Stephens Media. The court examined the Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven and Stephens Media, which granted Righthaven only the right to sue for infringement while Stephens Media retained all other rights to the copyrighted work. The court concluded that Righthaven lacked standing to bring the copyright claim because it did not possess sufficient ownership rights under the Copyright Act. As a result, the court dismissed Righthaven from the case for lack of standing, denied the other pending motions as moot, and ordered Righthaven to show cause why it should not be sanctioned for failing to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party.
propertyprocedure
Villagomes v. Laboratory Corp. of America
District Court, D. Nevada · 2011-03-08 · cited 4×
In this case, plaintiff Cynthia Villagomes sued Laboratory Corp. of America (LabCorp), Accurate Courier & Logistics, and Las Vegas Surgicare after her malignant tumor sample was lost following surgical removal in 2006, which prevented pathology analysis needed for her cancer treatment and allegedly caused emotional distress and related health issues. The court addressed the defendants' motions for summary judgment on claims of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), trespass to chattel, and punitive damages. It granted Surgicare's motion in full, dismissing it from the case, and granted the other defendants' motions in part by dismissing the NIED, IIED, trespass, and punitive damages claims due to insufficient evidence of intent, severe distress, or other required elements. The court denied summary judgment on the negligence claims against LabCorp and Accurate, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether they lost the sample and caused the plaintiff's damages.
torts & liabilityprocedure
Charles v. Ochs
District Court, D. Nevada · 2011-02-03
This case arose from the death of a foster child, Baby Boy Charles, who fell from a washing machine while in the care of his foster mother, leading to claims of negligence and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the supervising private agency Maple Star Nevada and its social worker Jennifer Erbes, as well as Clark County. The court considered motions for summary judgment filed by Maple Star, Erbes, and the County, which argued there were no genuine issues of material fact supporting the plaintiffs' claims of duty, breach, or municipal liability. The court denied both motions, finding factual disputes remained regarding whether the defendants had a continuing statutory duty under Nevada law to report suspected child abuse or neglect, whether they breached that duty by not investigating or reporting a prior facial injury to the child, and whether Clark County's policies or training failures amounted to deliberate indifference that contributed to the child's death.
civil rightsfamily lawproceduretorts & liability
Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Lawless
District Court, D. Nevada · 2010-01-07 · cited 1×
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute where Michael Lawless, injured while driving Daniel Mumau's Hyundai, sought uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under three separate policies Farmers Insurance issued to Mumau for different vehicles. Farmers paid the $50,000 UIM limit on the Hyundai policy but denied coverage under the Dodge and Chevrolet policies, citing anti-stacking clauses and Lawless's status as neither a named insured nor a rated driver on those policies. The court granted Farmers' motion for summary judgment and denied Lawless's cross-motion, holding that the anti-stacking provisions were enforceable under Nevada law (NRS 687B.145(1)) because they were clear, prominently displayed, and reflected separate premiums paid for each policy's unique risk. As a result, Lawless could not stack UIM coverages across policies, and Farmers had no further obligation beyond the Hyundai policy limits.
business & regulatory
Larson v. HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL, LLC
District Court, D. Nevada · 2009-09-01 · cited 15×
In Larson v. Homecomings Financial, LLC, plaintiffs who obtained a $200,000 mortgage loan in 2007 from Homecomings (later assigned to Nationstar) sued the lenders and trustee ETS, alleging nine claims including suitability, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligence, negligence per se, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, wrongful foreclosure, and unfair lending practices under Nevada law. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motions and dismissed the entire complaint, holding that suitability is not a recognized cause of action in Nevada lender-borrower relationships, that no fiduciary duty exists absent special circumstances, that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to meet federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal for the remaining tort and contract claims, that plaintiffs failed to allege they were not in default to support wrongful foreclosure, and that the unfair lending claim relied on a statutory amendment that was not in effect at the time of the loan.
propertybusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability