October 15, 2024, Oral Arguments
Bank of Am., N.A. vs. SFR INVS. Pool 1, LLC
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Clark Cnty. Dept. of Fam. Serv. vs. Dist. Ct. (Sharp)
Carson City – 10:45 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Johnson vs. Melendez
Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Natapu vs. Caterpillar, Inc. C/W 86010
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Bernal (Fabian) vs. State
Carson City – 2:15 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Bank of Am., N.A. vs. SFR INVS. Pool 1, LLC
Docket No. 87103
Carson City – 10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Respondent acquired the disputed property at an HOA foreclosure but took the property subject to the first deed of trust because the first deed of trust was federally owned. Appellant services the mortgage and sought to foreclose on the first deed of trust. Respondent requested payoff information for the first deed of trust pursuant to NRS 107.200 and NRS 107.210, which appellant did not deliver. Respondent sued to obtain the information and placed a lis pendens on the property. Appellant then provided the required information. Respondent requested a preliminary injunction to halt the scheduled foreclosure. The district court filed the preliminary injunction enjoining appellant from foreclosing for the duration of the lawsuit. The district court also declined to expunge the lis pendens. ISSUES: (1) whether 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f) renders the preliminary injunction void ab initio; (2) alternatively, if the preliminary injunction was permitted under federal law, whether the district court abused its discretion under Nevada law by granting the preliminary injunction; and (3) whether this court should consider the district court’s denial of the motion to expunge the lis pendens, and if so, whether 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) preempted the availability of a lis pendens on the property.
Clark Cnty. Dept. of Fam. Serv. vs. Dist. Ct. (Sharp)
Docket No. 88457
Carson City – 10:45 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Real party in interest Nikos Sharp is charged with sex crimes against E.S., a minor. To prepare his defense, he requested various unredacted reports from the Division of Family Services pertaining to DFS investigations of E.S., which did not directly involve Sharp. DFS refused to provide him with the unredacted reports. The district court granted Sharp’s motion for production. DFS filed this petition to challenge the district court’s order.
Johnson vs. Melendez
Docket No. 86754
Carson City – 11:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
After an automobile accident, Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with appellant’s insurance company for $800. Shortly thereafter, respondent nevertheless filed suit against appellant for damages relating to that accident. Appellant’s public address was incorrect and so respondent was unable to personally serve appellant with notice of the suit. Respondent failed to seek an updated address from appellant’s insurance company before proceeding to alternate service with the DMV and, ultimately, the entry of default judgment against appellant. After learning of the judgment, appellant moved to set it aside for lack of actual notice of the suit, which the district court denied. This appeal follows.
Natapu vs. Caterpillar, Inc. C/W 86010
Docket No. 85841
Carson City – 1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
This is an appeal from a defense judgment on a jury verdict in a wrongful death case alleging strict products liability. The jury found that the defendant’s product was defectively designed, that the plaintiff did not misuse the product, but that the plaintiff assumed the risk of the defect in that product. Plaintiff appeals, arguing that the district court erred in admitting assumption-of-the-risk evidence, argument, and jury instruction and in admitting conclusions in a Mine Safety Health Administration report as to the cause of the underlying accident.
Bernal (Fabian) vs. State
Docket No. 86748
Carson City – 2:15 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Fabian Bernal appeals his conviction of murder with the use of a deadly weapon, attempted murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and discharging a firearm at or into a vehicle. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in (1) admitting gang-affiliation evidence against his codefendant, (2) denying his request to sever the trials, (3) prohibiting the testimony of one of the victims pursuant to his Fifth Amendment privilege, and (4) admitting photographs of him with a firearm that were more prejudicial than probative.