Year: 2024

Are You Sure You Have Enough Home, Auto, And Recreational Vehicle Insurance to Protect Your Family?

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Are You Sure You Have Enough Home, Auto, And Recreational Vehicle Insurance to Protect Your Family?

Many homeowners or car owners are shocked, after an accident, to find that their insurance does not pay for all of their losses (or those of someone they injured), or in some cases, even most of their losses.

How Much is Enough?

Whether you have the right amount and type of coverage may well depend on the amount of assets you have to protect. If you make $30,000 a year and rent an apartment, $100,000/ $300,000 coverage may suffice. If, on the other hand, you earn a six figure annual salary, have a business, or significant assets, carrying that little amount of coverage would be foolish.

Read More “Are You Sure You Have Enough Home, Auto, And Recreational Vehicle Insurance to Protect Your Family?” »

Business Law, Franchise Law, J

Are You Ready For Mediation? 7 Things to Discuss With Your Client

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Are You Ready For Mediation? 7 Things to Discuss With Your Client

Readiness Checklist for Mediation Counsel should consider discussing the matters below with their client prior to mediating a litigated matter.  Doing so will better prepare the client and counsel for the mediation itself and will improve the opportunity for resolution at mediation. Explain the Process of Mediation What Is Mediation? What is the Role of…

Read More “Are You Ready For Mediation? 7 Things to Discuss With Your Client” »

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Business Law, J, Litigation, Mediation Mediator

Are They Employees or Independent Contractors?

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Are They Employees or Independent Contractors?

With challenges to the economy, companies are looking for every way possible to save money. A potential risk for employers is to mischaracterize an employee as an independent contractor, which may save payroll taxes in the short term but may lead to penalties on such taxes as well as other inadvertent violations of worker’s compensation laws,…

Read More “Are They Employees or Independent Contractors?” »

Business Law, Corporate Governance, Employment Law, Franchise Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator

Are Nevada Common Law Trade Secret Claims “Displaced” by the Uniform Trade Secret Act?

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Are Nevada Common Law Trade Secret Claims “Displaced” by the Uniform Trade Secret Act?

A majority of courts have held that all common law claims which might otherwise be made against an employee who uses his employer’s confidential information are abrogated when the legislature enacts the Uniform Trade Secret Act.  Nevada has codified both the Nevada Uniform Trade Secret Act (“NUTSA”), and the idea that common law claims are…

Read More “Are Nevada Common Law Trade Secret Claims “Displaced” by the Uniform Trade Secret Act?” »

Intellectual Property, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Are Minimum Wage Laws that Discriminate Against Franchises “Industry-Specific” for the Purposes of Item 1?

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Are Minimum Wage Laws that Discriminate Against Franchises “Industry-Specific” for the Purposes of Item 1?

By Guest Blogger Matthew Kreutzer The top stories in the franchise world continue to be about efforts by the cities of Seattle, Chicago, and others in raising the minimum wage with laws that discriminate against small business owners who own franchises.  These laws are a serious concern for franchisees and franchisors alike. In brief, these laws…

Read More “Are Minimum Wage Laws that Discriminate Against Franchises “Industry-Specific” for the Purposes of Item 1?” »

Business Law, Franchise Law, J, Litigation

Arbitration of Actions in District Courts and Justice Courts in Nevada

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Arbitration of Actions in District Courts and Justice Courts in Nevada

ARBITRATION OF ACTIONS IN DISTRICT COURTS AND JUSTICE COURTS

NRS 38.250  Nonbinding arbitration of certain civil actions filed in district court required; nonbinding arbitration of certain civil actions filed in justice court authorized; effect of certain agreements by parties to use other alternative methods of resolving disputes.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 38.310:

(a) All civil actions filed in district court for damages, if the cause of action arises in the State of Nevada and the amount in issue does not exceed $50,000 per plaintiff, exclusive of attorney’s fees, interest and court costs, must be submitted to nonbinding arbitration in accordance with the provisions of NRS 38.250 to 38.259, inclusive, unless the parties have agreed or are otherwise required to submit the action to an alternative method of resolving disputes established by the Supreme Court pursuant to NRS 38.258, including, without limitation, a settlement conference, mediation or a short trial.

(b) A civil action for damages filed in justice court may be submitted to binding arbitration or to an alternative method of resolving disputes, including, without limitation, a settlement conference or mediation, if the parties agree to the submission.

2.  An agreement entered into pursuant to this section must be:

(a) Entered into at the time of the dispute and not be a part of any previous agreement between the parties;

(b) In writing; and

(c) Entered into knowingly and voluntarily.

Ê An agreement entered into pursuant to this section that does not comply with the requirements set forth in this subsection is void.

3.  As used in this section, “short trial” means a trial that is conducted, with the consent of the parties to the action, in accordance with procedures designed to limit the length of the trial, including, without limitation, restrictions on the amount of discovery requested by each party, the use of a jury composed of not more than eight persons and a specified limit on the amount of time each party may use to present the party’s case.

(Added to NRS by 1991, 1343; A 1993, 556, 1024; 1995, 1419, 2537, 2538; 1999, 852, 1379; 2003, 851; 2005, 391)

Read More “Arbitration of Actions in District Courts and Justice Courts in Nevada” »

Arbitration Arbitrator, Business Law, Litigation

An Overview of the Federal Arbitration Act

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on 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.

Read More “An Overview of the Federal Arbitration Act” »

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration Arbitrator, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator

Alternative Dispute Resolution Options in Las Vegas, Nevada

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Alternative Dispute Resolution Options in Las Vegas, Nevada

There are many pathways to resolving legal disputes in Nevada other than litigating the matter in court.  Some of those pathways, paradoxically, begin with one of the parties filing a lawsuit in court.  Others are initiated by the parties without going to court.  This article explores the various pathways to Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”), including arbitration and mediation and the rules governing them.

Read More “Alternative Dispute Resolution Options in Las Vegas, Nevada” »

Alternative Dispute Resolution, Arbitration Arbitrator, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation, Mediation Mediator

Abuse of Process Claim Requires an Allegation of Abusive Acts After the Filing of a Claim

Posted on By Jay Young

An abuse of process claim in Nevada has two fundamental elements: (1) an ulterior purpose, and (2) a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of a proceeding.  Executive Mgmt. Ltd. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 823, 843, 963 P.2d 465, 478 (1998).  The action for abuse of process hinges on the misuse of regularly-issued process.  Nevada Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Williams, 88 Nev. 601, 606, 503 P.2d 9 (1972).

The mere filing of a complaint itself is insufficient to establish the tort of abuse of process.  Hampton v. Nustar Managment Financial Group, Dist. Court, (D. Nev. 2007); Laxalt v. McClatchy, 622 F. Supp. 737, 752 (D. Nev. 1985).  Instead, the complaining party must include some allegation of abusive measures taken after the filing of the complaint in order to state a claim.  Id.  Merely alleging that an opposing party has a malicious motive in commencing a lawsuit does not give rise to a cause of action for abuse of process.  Id.; Curiano v. Suozzi, 469 N.E.2d 1324, 1326 (N.Y. 1984).

Read More “Abuse of Process Claim Requires an Allegation of Abusive Acts After the Filing of a Claim” »

J, Litigation

A Subpoena Seeking Documents from a Third Party That Could be Obtained from a Party is Unduly Burdensome

Posted on By Jay Young

The discovery standards and case law applied when seeking documents or information from non-parties differ from those of a party to the litigation. The limits on discovery should be more narrowly construed when non-parties are the target of discovery. Dart Indus. Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co., 649 F.2d 46, 649 (9th Cir. 1980) (recognizing that although there is a strong policy in favor of liberal discovery, there is potential for abuse in applying that policy to nonparties); In re Subpoena to Apple, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-80139-LHK-PSG, 2014 WL 2798863, *2 (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2014) (“Discovery may be limited to ‘protect third parties from harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents.'” quoting Dart, supra); Edwards v. California Dairies, Inc., 2014 WL 2465934 at *2 (“While discovery should not be unnecessarily restricted, discovery is more limited to protect third parties from harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents.” citing Dart, supra).  Pursuant to Rule 45(c)(2)(B), which allows the answering party to timely object to the Subpoena, once a party raises a timely objection to a Subpoena, it is not required to produce documents, or even search for them, until the subpoenaing party obtains an order compelling the same.  Id. (citing Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, at 494 & n. 5 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also Forsythe v. Brown, 281 F.R.D. 577, 587 (D.Nev.2012) report and recommendation adopted, 3:10–CV–00716–RCJ, 2012 WL 1833393 (D. Nev. May 18, 2012).

Read More “A Subpoena Seeking Documents from a Third Party That Could be Obtained from a Party is Unduly Burdensome” »

Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator