Category: Litigation

Into the Weeds: Is it Time to Rethink the Vanguard Decision?

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Into the Weeds: Is it Time to Rethink the Vanguard Decision?

This blog post questions the applicability of the Vanguard ruling, which mandates full disclosure regardless of potential liability. The author suggests reassessing this strict requirement in light of proportional discovery standards established by Nevada’s NRCP.

Discovery, Las Vegas Nevada Special Master, Litigation

Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 51

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 51

Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 51. Instructions to the Jury; Objections; Preserving a Claim of Error (a)      Requests. (1)    Before or at the Close of the Evidence. At the close of the evidence or at any earlier reasonable time that the court orders, a party may file and furnish to every other party written…

Read More “Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 51” »

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

Ask for a Break in a Deposition in Nevada and You Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on Ask for a Break in a Deposition in Nevada and You Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege

(Discoverability of Conversations During Deposition Breaks)

 

Let’s pretend that your client needs a restroom break during a deposition and there is no question pending (thus, not triggering an In Re Stratosphere Corporation, 182 F.R.D. 614 (D. Nev. 1998) problem).  You and your client requested a break.  Before going back into the deposition, you remind your client about the training you gave him to answer only the question asked and not to volunteer information.  You also tell him to beware if opposing counsel asks questions about that smoking gun document that he pay special attention to the second paragraph.  Under a recent Nevada decision, no privilege would attach to that conversation, meaning your client could and would be forced to divulge the contents of that conversation if the examining attorney is aware of the decision.

Read More “Ask for a Break in a Deposition in Nevada and You Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege” »

Business Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation, Mediation Mediator

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 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

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

8th Judicial District Court’s Administrative Order 19-03 Brings EDCR Into Alignment With the Amended NRCP

Posted on By Jay Young No Comments on 8th Judicial District Court’s Administrative Order 19-03 Brings EDCR Into Alignment With the Amended NRCP

Chief Judge Linda Marie Bell issued Administrative Order 19-03 on behalf of the Eighth Judicial District Court on March 12, 2019.   It suspends many Eighth Judicial District Court Rules which are in conflict with the amended NRCP.  The purpose of the order is stated:

[f]or the benefit of the bar and to ease confusion until the EJDC amends its local rules to conform to the amended NRCP, NRAP, and NEFCR, the EJDC finds it necessary to suspend or modify certain District Court Rules.  Additionally, to the extent any other rule of the Eighth Judicial District Court conflicts with the revised NRCP, NRAP, and NEFCR, the NRCP, NRAP, and NEFCR control.  

The Order alters the rules as follows until the EDCR can be amended (the stricken language below is suspended by the Order):

Rule 1.14.  Time; judicial days; service by mail.

Read More “8th Judicial District Court’s Administrative Order 19-03 Brings EDCR Into Alignment With the Amended NRCP” »

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