August 14, 2024, Oral Arguments
Bourne vs. Valdes, M.D.
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. vs. Clark C/W 86349
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Brand Canna Growth Partners, Inc. vs. Dist. Ct. (The Haze Corp.)
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
West Charleston Lofts III, LLC vs. Dist. Ct. (Farina)
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Bourne vs. Valdes, M.D.
Docket No. 85812
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
In 2015, Dr. Zidrieck Valdes began treating David Bourne for depression and chronic back pain. As part of his treatment, Dr. Valdes prescribed Klonopin (a benzodiazepine) and an opioid. After a new CDC guideline was released, Dr. Valdes, without tapering, replaced Bourne's Klonopin with Buspar. After switching from Klonopin to Buspar, Bourne had monthly visits with Dr. Valdes. During those visits, Bourne did not display signs of being depressed or suicidal. Days after one of Bourne’s visits with Dr. Valdes, Bourne committed suicide. In his suicide note, Bourne wrote, “My mind is gone all from being prescribed a drug I didn’t even need. . .the Dr. stopped prescribing without tapering . . . .” Bourne’s wife and minor child filed suit against Dr. Valdes. After some litigation, Dr. Valdes filed a motion for summary judgment asking the district court to apply the suicide rule which dictates that suicide is an unforeseeable event that severs any liability for a defendant’s wrongful act. The district court granted Dr. Valdes’ motion. Bourne’s wife and child now appeal asking this court to reject the suicide rule and to reverse and remand the case for trial.
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. vs. Clark C/W 86349
Docket No. 86155
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
Respondent Christopher Clark was injured in an automobile accident. He subsequently made an underinsured motorist claim against his insurer, appellant State Farm, for the full value of his $50,000 policy. State Farm initially tendered $2,500. Clark sued for breach of contract. After a year of negotiations, litigation, and medical treatments, Clark moved to amend his complaint to include claims of a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (bad faith) and violations of the Unfair Claim Practices Act (UCPA). State Farm tendered the remaining $47,500 after Clark’s motion to amend was granted. Clark subsequently filed his amended complaint. Two years later, the case proceeded to trial. At trial, State Farm moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court denied. The jury awarded Clark $1,450,000 in total damages. Post-trial, State Farm renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law and moved for a new trial. The district court granted in part a reduction of the UCPA damages, but otherwise denied State Farm’s motions. The district court also granted Clark fees and costs under NRCP 68. State Farm now appeals from (1) the final amended judgment; (2) the orders partially granting and denying State Farm’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for new trial; and (3) the order awarding Clark attorney’s fees and costs.
Brand Canna Growth Partners, Inc. vs. Dist. Ct. (The Haze Corp.)
Docket No. 87263
Las Vegas – 11:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
In the case underlying this petition for a writ of prohibition, the district court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Petitioner argues that it does not have minimum contacts with Nevada as required by the Due Process Clause, nor did it purposefully avail itself of Nevada, and thus the district court lacks jurisdiction over it.. Accordingly, petitioner asks this court to issue a writ of prohibition instructing the district court to grant petitioner’s motion to dismiss.
West Charleston Lofts III, LLC vs. Dist. Ct. (Farina)
Docket No. 87609
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Herndon/Lee/Bell
West Charleston Lofts argues that the district court incorrectly tolled a statute of limitations by improperly expanding this court’s holding from State, Department of Human Resources, Welfare Division v. Shively, 110 Nev. 316, 871 P.2d 355 (1994). Shively permits a district court to toll the statute of limitations for a party’s claims when that party is compelled to pursue administrative remedies before filing suit in court. Here, the district court analogized mandatory administrative remedies to compelled arbitration. It reasoned that because WCL compelled the Farina Living Trust to arbitration, the statutes of limitations covering FLT’s counterclaims could be tolled pursuant to Shively. WCL seeks a writ of mandamus to vitiate the district court’s order.