Nevada Arbitration Rules

NEVADA ARBITRATION RULES

Rule 1. The court annexed arbitration program. The Court Annexed Arbitration Program (the program) is a mandatory, non-binding arbitration program, as hereinafter described, for certain civil cases commenced in judicial districts that include a county whose population is 100,000 or more. Judicial districts having a lesser population may adopt local rules implementing all or part of the program.

[Added; effective July 1, 1992; amended effective January 1, 2005.]

Rule 2. Intent of program and application of rules.

(A) The purpose of the program is to provide a simplified procedure for obtaining a prompt and equitable resolution of certain civil matters.

(B) These rules shall apply to all arbitration proceedings commenced in the program.

(C) These arbitration rules are not intended, nor should they be construed, to address every issue which may arise during the arbitration process. The intent of these rules is to give considerable discretion to the arbitrator, the commissioner and the district judge. Arbitration hearings are intended to be informal, expeditious and consistent with the purposes and intent of these rules.

(D) These rules may be known and cited as the Nevada Arbitration Rules, or abbreviated N.A.R.

[Added; effective July 1, 1992; amended effective January 1, 2005.]

Continue reading Nevada Arbitration Rules

Nevada Mediation Rules

NEVADA MEDIATION RULES

Rule 1. The court annexed mediation program.

(A) The Court Annexed Mediation Program (the program) is an alternative to the Court Annexed Arbitration Program and is intended to provide parties a prompt, equitable and inexpensive method of dispute resolution for matters otherwise mandated into the arbitration program.

(B) These rules may be known and cited as the Nevada Mediation Rules, or abbreviated N.M.R.

[Added; effective March 1, 2005.]

Rule 2. Matters entering the mediation program. Any matter that is otherwise subject to the Court Annexed Arbitration Program may be voluntarily placed into the Mediation Program. Participation in the Mediation Program shall be by mutual consent of the parties pursuant to written stipulation. The stipulation must be filed with the commissioner within 15 days after the filing of an answer by the first answering defendant. For good cause shown, an appropriate case may be placed into the program upon the filing of an untimely stipulation; however, such filing may subject the parties to sanctions by the commissioner.

[Added; effective March 1, 2005.]

Continue reading Nevada Mediation Rules

Nevada Rules Governing Alternative Dispute Resolution

RULES GOVERNING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

(Arbitration and Mediation)

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Rule 1. Definitions. As used in these rules:

(A) “Arbitration” means a process whereby a neutral third person, called an arbitrator, considers the facts and arguments presented by the parties and renders a decision, which may be binding or nonbinding as provided in these rules.

(B) “Mediation” means a process whereby a neutral third person, called a mediator, acts to encourage and facilitate the resolution of a dispute between two or more parties. It is an informal and nonadversarial process with the objective of helping the disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable and voluntary agreement. In mediation, decision-making authority rests with the parties. The role of the mediator includes, but is not limited to, assisting the parties in identifying issues, fostering joint problem solving, and exploring settlement alternatives.

(C) “Settlement conference” is a process whereby, with the approval of the district judge to whom the case is assigned, a district court judge not assigned to the particular case, senior judge, special master, referee or other neutral third person, conducts, in the presence of the parties and their attorneys and person or persons with authority to resolve the matter, a conference for the purpose of facilitating settlement of the case.

[Added; effective March 1, 2005.]

Continue reading Nevada Rules Governing Alternative Dispute Resolution

An Overview of the Federal Arbitration Act

The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq. (the “FAA”), governs the enforcement of arbitration agreements. 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-2; Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 398 U.S. 395, 402 (1967). The FAA established a national public policy favoring arbitration. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740, 1745 (2011)). An arbitration agreement is enforceable under the FAA if it is in writing, relates to a commercial or maritime transaction, and manifests and agreement between the parties to arbitrate a dispute. 9 U.S.C § 1. Contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” are not covered by the FAA. Id. Continue reading An Overview of the Federal Arbitration Act

The Nevada legislature defines Arbitrator

Nevada Revised Statutes, NRS 38.209 “Arbitrator” defined. “Arbitrator” means an individual appointed to render an award, alone or with others, in a controversy that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.

(Added to NRS by 2001, 1274)

Continue reading The Nevada legislature defines Arbitrator

Elements for a Claim of Quiet Title

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of quiet title are:

Action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claims. NRS 40.010;
“A plea to quiet title does not require any particular elements, but each party must plead and prove his or her own claim to the property in question and a plaintiff’s right to relief therefore depends on superiority of title.” Chapman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 302 P.3d 1103, 1106 (Nev. 2013);
Record a Lis Pendens; and
Record a certified copy of the judgment quieting title. NRS 247.120(o).

Joyner v. Bank of America Home Loans, Case No. 2:09-CV-2406-RCJ-RJJ 2010 WL 2953969 (D. Nev. 2010); Kemberling v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:09-CV-00567-RCJ-LRL, 2009 WL 5039495 (D. Nev. 2009); Del Webb Conservation Holding Corp. v. Tolman, 44 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1109-10 (D. Nev. 1999); Union Mill v. Mining Co. v. Warren, 82 F. 519, 520 (D. Nev. 1897); Howell v. Ricci, 197 P.3d 1044, 1046 n. 1 (Nev. 2008); Breliant v. Preferred Equities Corp., 112 Nev. 663, 669, 918 P.2d 314, 318 (Nev. 1996); Sceirine v. Densmore, 87 Nev. 9, 12, 479 P.2d 779 (1971); MacDonald v. Krause, 77 Nev. 312, 317-18, 362 P.2d 724 (Nev. 1961); Clay v. Scheeline Banking & Trust Co., 40 Nev. 9, 159 P. 1081, 1082-83 (1916).

Business Attorney Las Vegas, Nevada

Jay Young, business attorney, has been voted by his peers as one of the top 100 attorneys in the Mountain States. He is a Member of the national firm Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC.

Howard & Howard provides a full array of business legal services to corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies and other entities:

Choice of entity, formation and operation
Shareholder relations and ownership succession
General corporate governance
Commercial transactions, including license, employment, lease, sales, advertising, marketing, information technology, software, consultant, manufacturing, supply, distribution, confidentiality, and other business and operating agreements
Mergers and acquisitions
Intellectual property protection and technology licensing and management
Employee relations, including labor unions, compensation, and benefit planning
Finance, including traditional secured loan facilities, off-balance sheet financing such as equipment leasing, and public and private debt and equity securities offerings
Antitrust
Creditor relations, including work-out and bankruptcy
Real estate, zoning and environmental regulations

Jay concentrates on business litigation, mediation, and arbitration. The firm’s commercial litigation practice includes representing Fortune 500 companies, local businesses, prominent individuals, and non-profit organizations who routinely turn to Howard & Howard for business litigation and trial law services, including the following areas:

Bankruptcy Law Disputes
Antitrust
Business Torts Claims
Business breakups
Contract Disputes
Class Actions
Construction Claims
Condemnation Claims
Dealer, Distributor & Franchise Claims
Employment Claims
Energy Law Claims
Financial Institutions
Government Investigations
Gaming Law
Heath Care Claims
Insurance Coverage
Patent, Trademark & Copyright
Product Liability
Real Estate
Securities
Shareholder Disputes
Supply Chain Claims
Tax/Property Tax
Toxic Tort
TRO/Injunctions
Trade Secrets & Unfair Competition
UCC Claims

Mediation and Arbitration of Claims Related to Residential Property Within Common-Interest Community (HOA)

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN COMMON-INTEREST COMMUNITY

NRS 38.300 Definitions. As used in NRS 38.300 to 38.360, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. “Assessments” means:

(a) Any charge which an association may impose against an owner of residential property pursuant to a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions, including any late charges, interest and costs of collecting the charges; and

(b) Any penalties, fines, fees and other charges which may be imposed by an association pursuant to paragraphs (j) to (n), inclusive, of subsection 1 of NRS 116.3102 or subsections 10, 11 and 12 of NRS 116B.420.

2. “Association” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 116.011 or 116B.030.

3. “Civil action” includes an action for money damages or equitable relief. The term does not include an action in equity for injunctive relief in which there is an immediate threat of irreparable harm, or an action relating to the title to residential property.

4. “Division” means the Real Estate Division of the Department of Business and Industry.

5. “Program” means a program established by the Division under which a person, including, without limitation, a referee or hearing officer, can render decisions on disputes relating to:

(a) The interpretation, application or enforcement of any covenants, conditions or restrictions applicable to residential property or any bylaws, rules or regulations adopted by an association; or

(b) The procedures used for increasing, decreasing or imposing additional assessments upon residential property.

6. “Residential property” includes, but is not limited to, real estate within a planned community subject to the provisions of chapter 116 of NRS or real estate within a condominium hotel subject to the provisions of chapter 116B of NRS. The term does not include commercial property if no portion thereof contains property which is used for residential purposes.

(Added to NRS by 1995, 1416; A 2003, 2251, 2274; 2007, 2277; 2013, 2295)

Continue reading Mediation and Arbitration of Claims Related to Residential Property Within Common-Interest Community (HOA)

Elements for a Claim of Res Ipsa Loquitur

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of the tort of res ipsa loquitur (latin for “the thing speaks for itself”) are:

First, that events are the kind of events that ordinarily do not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;
The events were caused by an agency or instrumentality in the exclusive control of the Defendant, over which the defendant had the exclusive right of control, originally, and which was not mishandled or otherwise changed after defendant relinquished control;
The event was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff which was the responsible cause of his injury; and
Causation and damages.

NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 4.18; NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 4.19; BAJI 4.00; BAJI 4.02.

See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library