Tuesday September 8, 2020 - Carson City - Full Court
COTTER, JR. VS. KANE C/W 76981/77648/77733
Docket Number: 75053
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - Full Court
These are consolidated appeals arising from a derivative shareholder action. After the patriarch of the Cotter family died and a family feud erupted around his estate, James Cotter, Jr. (Cotter) alleges he was pushed out of the family’s business, Reading International, Inc. (RDI), by his two sisters and the directors who were aligned with the Cotter sisters. He asserted that eight RDI directors breached their fiduciary duties and were not disinterested and independent, and he challenged five of the Board’s actions, including his termination as CEO and the approval of his sisters’ use of an option from the patriarch’s estate to purchase stock. In Docket No. 75053, the district court dismissed the action as to five of the directors, concluding they were disinterested. Thereafter, the five dismissed directors ratified the two remaining Board actions Cotter challenged. In Docket No. 76981, the district court granted the directors’ summary judgment as a result of the ratification. In Docket No. 77648, the district court awarded RDI costs, including more than $1,500 for each expert witness retained by the directors. In Docket No. 77648, the district court denied RDI’s request for attorney fees as a prevailing party and its request for judgment in its favor.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: (1) Can RDI, a nominal defendant, oppose Cotter’s derivative action; (2) Did Cotter adequately plead demand futility; (3) Does Cotter adequately represent shareholders; (4) Did the district court err in dismissing the five directors; (5) Was the Board permitted to ratify the remaining Board actions Cotter challenged under NRS 78.140; (6) Did the district court err in dismissing the action against the remaining directors as a result of the ratification; (7) Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding more than $1,500 for each expert witness; (8) Did the district court abuse its discretion in awarding RDI costs; (9) Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying RDI attorney fees; (10) Did the district court err in denying RDI’s request for judgment in its favor.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
RAND PROPS., LLC VS. FLIPPINI
Docket Number: 78319
Carson City - 11:00 A.M. - Full Court
This matter previously came before this court on appeal following a district court’s adjudication of conflicting claims asserted by appellant and respondents to water rights from Trout Creek. This court vacated several of the district court’s rulings for failure to both make specific findings or to apply correct law, and remanded the case for further proceedings on the issues. On remand, the district court entered a decree and an order pursuant this court’s disposition.
ISSUES:
Appellant appeals and raises the following ISSUES: Whether: (1) the district court erred in determining priority dates for vested irrigation water rights; (2) the district court erred in determining priority dates for vested stock water rights; (3) the district court erred in determining that appellant was not a bona fide purchaser, and that one of the respondent’s was entitled to an easement along the Trout Creek pipeline.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.L.S.
Docket Number: 79124
Carson City - 1:00 P.M. - Full Court
Appellant Tahja Lujan sought to voluntarily place her infant daughter in the care of respondent Clark County Department of Family Services, and DFS filed a neglect petition to which Lujan pleaded no contest. Although Lujan apparently intended the placement to be temporary, DFS subsequently brought a petition to terminate Lujan’s parental rights, two years after the initial placement. A hearing master conducted a trial and recommended termination. After reviewing the recommendation, the district court ordered that Lujan’s parental rights be terminated.
ISSUES:
Lujan now appeals raising, among other challenges, whether it was appropriate for the hearing to be held before a master, and not the district court judge. L.L.S. supports reversal.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
MOORE (MAURICE) VS. STATE
Docket Number: 79817
Carson City - 2:00 P.M. - Full Court
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of two counts of lewdness with a child under the age of 16. Appellant Maurice Moore met A.M. on the online dating application, Tinder. Moore was 41 years old and A.M. was 14 years old. Yet, on their respective dating profiles, Moore represented himself as 23 years old, and A.M. represented herself as 18 years old. They engaged in sexual intercourse. The State charged Moore with two counts of lewdness with a child under sixteen, among other charges. The district court denied Moore’s request to argue mistake of fact regarding his belief that A.M. was an adult as a defense to the lewdness charges. The jury found Moore guilty of the two lewdness counts. Moore now appeals.
ISSUES:
ISSUES: Whether: (1) the district court erred in instructing the jury regarding the lewdness charges, (2) the district court abused its discretion in precluding Moore from asserting mistake of fact as a defense to the lewdness charges; and (3) any error was harmless.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do