March 19, 2024, Oral Arguments
In RE: Guardianship of A.D.I., A.R.I., A.J.I.
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A24
Tipping Point Gaming, LLC vs. Caesars Enter. Servs, LLC c/w 85822
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A24
Gershon vs. Dist. Ct. (Viher) c/w 86661/86662/86663/86664/86665
Las Vegas – 1:00 p.m. – Panel A24
In RE: Guardianship of A.D.I., A.R.I., A.J.I.
Docket No. 84126
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Panel A24
This is an appeal from a district court order granting the natural mother’s petition to terminate a guardianship over her three children. Appellant argues that the district court applied the incorrect standard in terminating the guardianship by applying a best interest of the child analysis when it was required to determine whether termination of the guardianship would substantially enhance the welfare of the protected minors. Further, appellant argues that termination was not in the best interest of the protected minors nor did it substantially enhance their welfare. Appellant also argues the district court erred in appointing a guardian ad litem instead of an attorney for the protected minors. Finally, appellant argues that the district court erroneously determined that the natural mother was entitled to the parental preference presumption.
Tipping Point Gaming, LLC vs. Caesars Enter. Servs, LLC c/w 85822
Docket No. 85603
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Panel A24
This contract action arises out of an agreement that required appellant to create certain gaming technologies for respondent. At some point, appellant sought to sell its assets to a third-party. After appellant failed to acquire appropriate licensing and certification of its technologies, respondent sent appellant a notice of non-renewal and filed suit against appellant for breach of contract and other claims. In response, appellant filed several counterclaims against respondent including breach of contract and intentional interference with prospective contract. The case proceeded to trial. After appellant made its case, the district court granted respondent’s motion for judgment as a matter of law as to all but one of appellant’s counterclaims. The jury entered a verdict in favor of both respondent and appellant but issued no monetary award. Following the verdict, the district court awarded respondent $2.6 million in attorneys’ fees and costs. Appellant now appeals arguing that the district court erred in granting respondent’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and awarding respondent attorneys’ fees and costs.
Gershon vs. Dist. Ct. (Viher) c/w 86661/86662/86663/86664/86665
Docket No. 86660
Las Vegas – 1:00 p.m. – Panel A24
Respondent was injured by the off-label use of a medical device for cosmetic surgery. Respondent was never warned of the risks of such off-label use. Respondent brought various claims for negligence, fraud, and failure-to-warn against the physician and facility who performed the procedure and Petitioners, all nonresident high-level employees of the medical device company. Petitioners allegedly created the fraudulent marketing plan that led to dangerous, off-label use of the medical device in Nevada. After the district court denied Petitioners’ motion to dismiss, Petitioners each filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with this court asserting that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction over them individually. We consolidated the claims.