District Court, D. Nevada — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management
District Court, D. Nevada · 2011-06-29
The case concerned Wilderness Watch's challenge to the Bureau of Land Management's authorization of limited helicopter training by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department for search and rescue operations in the La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness Areas. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Wilderness Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, arguing that the BLM improperly allowed motorized aircraft use and failed to prepare an environmental impact statement. The court reviewed the agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act and granted summary judgment to the BLM and LVMPD, holding that the decision reasonably interpreted the Wilderness Act's emergency exception, was not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with NEPA based on the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
environmentfederal powerprocedure
Goldberg v. Pagaduan (In Re Pagaduan)
District Court, D. Nevada · 2011-03-25 · cited 2×
This case involved an appeal by attorney Randolph Goldberg from a bankruptcy court's sanctions order in connection with his representation of debtors Alfonso and Editha Pagaduan. The bankruptcy court sanctioned Goldberg for forging certification of the debtors' required credit counseling course, imposed a $4,920 monetary penalty payable to the court, referred the matter for possible criminal prosecution and state bar discipline, and extended a prior sanctions order from another case. On appeal, the district court affirmed the sanctions and referrals, finding substantial evidence supported the findings, the bankruptcy judge had discretion to impose them, and there was no basis to reverse the reporting decisions. The court vacated only the extension of the prior sanctions order, as there was no authority or violation to justify modifying it. The core reasoning centered on the bankruptcy court's factual findings not being clearly erroneous, the voluntary nature of witness testimony, and limits on appellate interference with disciplinary processes.
procedurecriminal law
Estate of Edward Idzior v. Medsolutions, Inc.
District Court, D. Nevada · 2011-03-07
The case involved the estate of Edward Idzior suing AETNA Life Insurance and Medsolutions for denying insurance coverage for recommended heart tests, which plaintiffs claimed led to Mr. Idzior's fatal heart attack. The defendants moved to dismiss the state-law claims of bad faith, breach of contract, wrongful death, and others, arguing they were preempted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) because they related to an employee health benefit plan. The court determined that the plan was governed by ERISA and that the claims were completely preempted under ERISA Section 502(a), leading to the granting of the motion to dismiss while permitting the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to reframe their claims under federal law.
healthcarefederal powerprocedure
United States v. Perelman
District Court, D. Nevada · 2010-08-19 · cited 2×
In United States v. Perelman, the defendant was indicted on charges of theft of government property and unauthorized wearing of a Purple Heart medal under sections (a) and (d) of the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704. The district court denied the defendant's motions to suppress statements made during an interview with investigators and to dismiss Count Two of the indictment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations after de novo review, finding the statements voluntary and determining that the case was distinguishable from U.S. v. Alvarez, which addressed only the constitutionality of other subsections of the Act prohibiting false verbal or written claims about military awards. The court concluded that the Alvarez decision did not apply to the provisions criminalizing the unauthorized wearing of medals.
criminal lawfree speechprocedure
United States v. Brown
District Court, D. Nevada · 2009-07-02 · cited 8×
In United States v. Brown, the defendant was charged with interference with commerce by robbery, possession of a firearm during a violent crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, stemming from an alleged armed robbery of a casino change person at an Albertson's supermarket. The defendant filed motions to suppress physical evidence, statements, and identification evidence, arguing violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and that the show-up identification was impermissibly suggestive. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations after de novo review, granting in part the motion to suppress by excluding one statement obtained in violation of Miranda rights while denying suppression of the remaining evidence and the identification. The court reasoned that police had probable cause to stop and arrest the defendant based on the victim's description and the recovery of bait money, that the search was valid incident to arrest, that most statements were spontaneous and not the product of interrogation, and that the identification procedure, though suggestive, was reliable under the circumstances given the victim's opportunity to observe and her careful selection process.
criminal lawprocedure
Garcia v. Dawahare
District Court, D. Nevada · 2008-03-26 · cited 2×
This case involved plaintiff Myriam Garcia's claims against defendant Farmers New World Life Insurance Company after it initially denied her claim for benefits under a $100,000 life insurance policy on her late husband, who died from cardiopulmonary arrest linked to undisclosed heart and lung conditions. The policy application and paramedical exam, completed with assistance from an agent, contained multiple misrepresentations about the insured's medical history of cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, and COPD, which the insurer discovered during its investigation within the policy's two-year contestability period under Nevada law. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims, including breach of contract, bad faith, and violations of the Nevada Unfair Trade Practices Act. It reasoned that the insurer had a reasonable basis for the initial denial due to the material misrepresentations, that the company later paid the full policy amount plus interest, and that no evidence supported bad faith or statutory violations.
business & regulatoryprocedure