January 2019 – Nevada Law Blog

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), “when the parties’ contract delegates the arbitrability question to an arbitrator, a court may not override the contract even if the court thinks that the arbitrability claim is wholly groundless.” The decision in Henry Shein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., issued January 8, 2019, addresses a split among the six circuit courts which have heard similar matters and vacates the decision of the Fifth Circuit which held that when a court determines that the request to have the matter arbitrated is “wholly groundless,” the court may deny a motion to allow an arbitrator to determine whether a matter is subject to arbitration.

Jay Young

Hon. Jay Young (Ret.) is a retired judicial officer with decades of experience presiding over complex civil litigation matters. Following a distinguished career on the bench, Judge Young now serves as a mediator, arbitrator, and court‑appointed special master, and discovery referee. Judge Young brings a disciplined, impartial, and results‑oriented approach to dispute resolution. Judge Young is based in Nevada and accepts appointments statewide and nationally, subject to agreement or court order. He can be reached at 855.777.4557 or info@armadr.com

Known for judicial temperament, analytical rigor, and practical problem‑solving, Judge Young assists litigants and counsel in resolving high‑stakes disputes efficiently and with integrity and employing best practices. He is recognized by U.S. News and World Report’s publication Best Lawyers as Arbitration Lawyer of the Year.

nevadalawinfo.wordpress.com

The Nevada Supreme Court calls its changes to the 2019 Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (“NRCP”) “exhaustive.” Although the changes do not take effect until March 1, 2019, since they are so comprehensive, a complete read would be advisable for all practitioners. The amended rules (with the committee’s explanatory notes) are available in this post; a red-lined PDF version can be found here. The amendments largely bring our rules into alignment with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), while retaining some Nevada-centric practices. Those familiar with the FRCP may find the version of NRCP red-lined against FRCP a most helpful document. The changes are too many to summarize here, but I have noted some which may impact civil practice the most regularly. They are presented in numerical order.

Rule 4.1 Waiver of Service:

Rule 4.1 incorporates the federal waiver of service rule, and without FRCP 4(d)(2)’s penalty provision. I’m uncertain what the rule committee intended, but the lack of penalty would seem to result in a defendant merely taking the full 30 days to delay the matter, refuse to waive service, and force the plaintiff to serve the old fashioned way, costing time and money. I have reached out a member of the committee to get a better understanding of the intention and how practitioners can comply with Rule 4.1(a)(1)(4), which requires that the notice contain a discussion of the consequences of failing to waive service.

[1.28.19 EDIT]: On 1.25.19, the Supreme Court issued an amendment to ADKT 522 which addresses this concerns and adds the federal-style penalties into the rule. The amendment also alters the official form. A copy of the Order can be found here.

Jay Young

nevadalawinfo.wordpress.com