Roger L. Hunt

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

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

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

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

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

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

In PEST Committee v. Miller, organizations and individuals seeking to use Nevada's initiative and referendum process sued the Secretary of State, challenging the single-subject and description-of-effect requirements in NRS 295.009 and the pre-election challenge procedure in NRS 295.061 as violations of their First Amendment rights. The court considered cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Count 1 and a motion to intervene by business and taxpayer groups. It denied the motion to intervene, denied the plaintiffs' motion, and granted the defendant's countermotion, upholding the statutes. The core reasoning was that the provisions are constitutional regulations of the ballot process that do not infringe on First Amendment protections, as they serve valid interests like preventing logrolling and ensuring informed voter decisions without unduly burdening speech.

electionsfree speech

In Urbina v. Homeview Lending Inc., homeowners who refinanced their Las Vegas property in 2006 and later defaulted sued the lender and servicer after a 2009 non-judicial foreclosure, bringing claims under federal statutes TILA, HOEPA, and RESPA plus state-law claims including fraud, deceptive practices, and quiet title. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing claims for injunctive relief, HOEPA violations, certain RESPA provisions, unfair lending practices, breach of the duty of good faith, emotional distress, and quiet title. It allowed the TILA claim for monetary damages, the remaining RESPA claim, fraud, and deceptive trade practices to proceed. Dismissals rested on failure to state a cognizable claim, expired statutes of limitations, or insufficient factual allegations, while surviving claims were found to meet pleading standards or involve unresolved factual issues such as equitable tolling.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power

In Mazzeo v. Gibbons, plaintiff Chrissy Mazzeo alleged that defendant James Gibbons, then a U.S. Congressman and gubernatorial candidate, assaulted her after a social gathering at a restaurant and that other defendants including police officials conspired to cover up the incident by fabricating evidence, destroying videos, and interfering with criminal prosecution, thereby violating her constitutional rights under the First Amendment and other provisions. The court addressed five motions to dismiss filed by Gibbons, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and its chief, and other individual defendants, along with plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss in part after analyzing issues such as whether defendants acted under color of state law and whether the allegations stated viable claims for First Amendment retaliation or denial of access to courts, while granting limited leave to amend by requiring plaintiff to remove dismissed claims and objectionable material.

civil rightscriminal lawfree speechelections

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute where plaintiff Michael Turk sought defense and indemnification from defendant TIG Insurance Company for an underlying lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act due to inaccessible apartment complex features. Turk claimed coverage under policies issued to companies he was affiliated with, but TIG denied the claims. The court granted TIG's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract and declaratory relief claims because the policies contained explicit exclusions for discrimination claims, which applied to the underlying suit. However, the court denied summary judgment on claims for unfair claims practices and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding TIG's handling of the claim. The motion to bifurcate the trial was denied as moot.

business & regulatorycivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved a bankruptcy debtor, Shetakis Distributing Co., that assigned its rights under a valuable lease and purchase option to Nevada Lease Option (NVLO) in 2001 without providing required notice to creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 363(b)(1). Creditor Hunt Ortmann, which learned of the transfer in 2004, later moved in 2007 to set the transfer aside in the bankruptcy case and a related adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court granted NVLO summary judgment, and the district court affirmed, holding that the transfer was voidable under 11 U.S.C. § 549 but that the two-year statute of limitations in § 549(d) had expired. The court reasoned that the limitations period began to run shortly after Hunt Ortmann learned of the transfer because reasonable diligence would have revealed the lack of notice, and equitable tolling did not apply because no circumstances beyond the creditor's control prevented timely action.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Plaintiff World Market Center Venture's motion for a preliminary injunction to compel Defendant Ritz to transfer the domain name marketlasvegas.com, which Plaintiff alleged infringed on its trademarks including "Las Vegas Market" and related variants for its wholesale furnishings trade show business. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that the phrase "Las Vegas Market" is generic and merely descriptive of location and activity, rendering it ineligible for trademark protection, that Defendant registered the domain years before Plaintiff's trademark application, and that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any likelihood of consumer confusion, irreparable harm, or the other required elements for injunctive relief under the Lanham Act.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Sentry Select Insurance v. Meyer, an insurance company filed a declaratory judgment action against its policyholders, the Meyers, and others, seeking a ruling that it had no obligation to cover a driver involved in a truck-motorcycle accident under the Meyers' policy. The Meyers, who were named as defendants but from whom no relief was sought and who had not requested coverage for the driver, incurred attorney fees defending the suit and moved for partial summary judgment to require reimbursement under a policy provision obligating the insurer to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the insured at the insurer's request. The court granted the motion, reasoning that naming the Meyers gratuitously in the action constituted a request by the insurer that they participate, triggering the reimbursement obligation, and that no other policy or endorsement provisions provided a basis for the insurer to avoid this duty.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether an insurer, Ohio Casualty, could seek reimbursement from its insured, Biotech Pharmacy, for defense costs paid under a commercial general liability policy, even if coverage was later determined not to apply. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, applying Texas law, granted Biotech's motion for partial summary judgment and held that Texas law does not allow reimbursement of defense expenses absent an express provision in the insurance contract or the insured's clear consent. The court based its prediction on Texas Supreme Court precedents in Matagorda County and Frank's Casing, which rejected unilateral reservation-of-rights letters as a basis for creating reimbursement rights and emphasized that insurers bear the risk of paying for uncovered claims unless the policy or a separate agreement provides otherwise. The motion for reconsideration was denied as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Carter, the defendant was charged with receipt and possession of child pornography under federal statutes after evidence was seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant based on an FBI agent's affidavit linking his IP address to a child pornography message board. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, requesting a Franks hearing on the grounds that the affidavit contained material omissions about the possibility that third parties could have used his wireless connection or spoofed his IP address. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion, finding that even if the omitted information had been included, the affidavit still provided a substantial basis for probable cause to search the residence. The district judge adopted the recommendation after de novo review, concluding that the defendant failed to show the omissions would negate probable cause or were made intentionally or recklessly.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Defendant Mark Young's motion to set a restitution payment schedule while imprisoned after his 2006 sentencing, which imposed $457,740.43 in restitution due immediately and a $3,300 penalty assessment. Young challenged the Bureau of Prisons' voluntary Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), under which $50 monthly was withheld from his prison earnings, claiming he signed under duress and seeking court intervention to reduce the amount. The court denied the motion, holding that the IFRP is voluntary with no evidence of improper duress, that 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) requires a material change in economic circumstances not present here, and that the court lacks authority to delegate its restitution scheduling duties to the BOP or interfere with its operations. The opinion noted that immediate payment is the default rule and that inmates must pursue administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns claims brought by a parent on behalf of an autistic preschooler alleging that a special education teacher and school district denied the child a free appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act through inadequate staffing during the teacher's absence and incidents of alleged physical mistreatment. The opinion resolves a series of pretrial motions, including requests for judgment on the administrative record, summary judgment on multiple claims for relief, and exclusion of expert and other witness testimony. The court denied the motion for judgment on the record and most summary judgment motions, allowing further briefing on immunity and related issues, while granting two motions to exclude certain expert and witness testimony; it also imposed a $1,000 sanction on plaintiffs' counsel for violations of local briefing rules.

civil rightsprocedure

In Coleman v. Assurant, Inc., the plaintiff sued MBNA America Bank and insurance companies for breach of contract and related claims after the insurers stopped payments on credit insurance policies covering his credit card debt due to disability. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the arbitration clause in the credit card agreement. The court granted the motions, finding a valid agreement to arbitrate existed under Delaware law as the plaintiff assented by using the card, that the clause encompassed the claims against all defendants, and that no waiver had occurred. The court stayed the proceedings pending arbitration and granted limited leave to amend the complaint.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Giwa, the defendant, facing a fifteen-count indictment for conspiracy, false statements, mail fraud, identity theft, access device fraud, and aggravated identity theft, moved to suppress evidence obtained from federal authorities' entries into his Los Angeles apartment on October 8-10, 2004. The entries followed an arrest warrant issued for a supervised release violation stemming from alleged ongoing criminal activity. The court conducted a de novo review and adopted the magistrate judge's report recommending denial of the motion. The core reasoning was that the arrest warrant was valid, the initial entry involved no seizure of evidence, any knock-and-announce violation did not require exclusion under then-current law, the search warrant affidavits contained no deliberate falsehoods and established probable cause, and the seizures complied with the Fourth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Nevada prisoner Robert A. Hays challenging his state convictions on four counts of sexual assault of a minor under fourteen and four counts of lewdness with a minor, based on allegations that he abused his eight-year-old daughter. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the petition and ordered Hays's immediate release from custody. The decision rested on findings that the convictions were obtained through cumulative constitutional errors, including prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, a conflict of interest affecting the appeal, and violations of double jeopardy, as the underlying crimes were never properly established. The court determined these issues rendered the state proceedings fundamentally unfair under federal law standards.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure