Tag: NRCP 12

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for February 1, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for February 1, 2018

SFR INV.’S POOL 1, LLC VS. FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS

  • How do the notice provisions of NRS 116.31162 apply amidst competing foreclosure sales by a bank and a homeowner’s association.

 CASTILLO VS. UNITED FED. CREDIT UNION

  • Is aggregation of putative class member claims permitted to determine jurisdiction.
  • Can a claim for statutory damages be combined with a claim for the elimination of the deficiency amount asserted to determine jurisdiction.
  • Does an assertion of injunctive relief establish jurisdiction.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 14, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for September 14, 2017

FACKLAM VS. HSBC BANK USA

  • Does NRS 11.190(1)(b)’s statute of limitations for contract actions apply to nonjudicial foreclosures.

DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. BUCKLES

  • Does NRS 200.620, which requires both parties to consent to the recording of a telephone call, apply to the recording of interstate calls when the act of recording takes place outside Nevada.

THOMAS (LACY) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • When a defendant requests a mistrial, does double jeopardy bar reprosecution when a prosecutor intentionally proceeds in a course of egregious and improper conduct that causes prejudice to the defendant.

 PROPERTY PLUS INV.’S, LLC VS. MORTG. ELEC. REGISTRATION SYS., INC.

  • Is an HOA limited to only one superpriority lien per parcel of property forever.
  • Does an HOA lien survive bankruptcy even though the homeowner’s personal obligation is extinguished upon a Chapter 7 discharge.

IN RE: DISH NETWORK DERIVATIVE LITIG. C/W 69012

  • What is the appropriate legal standard for a district court’s consideration of a company’s board of directors created special litigation committee’s (SLC) motion to defer to the SLC’s recommendation that derivative claims should be dismissed.

O.P.H. OF LAS VEGAS, INC. VS. OREGON MUT. INS. CO.

  • Does NRS 687B.360 require an insurance policy cancellation notice to contain a statement of a policyholder’s right to request additional information to be effective.
  • Under Nevada law, does an insurance broker who obtains an insurance policy for a client have a duty to monitor the client’s premium payments and to alert the client when the policy is about to be canceled for nonpayment of premiums.

PARAMETRIC SOUND CORP. VS. DIST. CT. (RAKAUSKAS)

  • Do shareholders lack standing to sue a corporation and its directors because the shareholders’ claims are derivative, not ones asserting direct injury.

PALIOTTA VS. STATE, DEP’T OF CORRECTONS

  • Did the State’s complete denial of an inmate’s request for either an Egyptian or kosher diet substantially burden the exercise of the inmate’s religious beliefs.

FRANCHISE TAX BD. VS. HYATT

  • Does the exception to government immunity for intentional torts and bad faith conduct survive the Nevada Supreme Court’s adoption of the federal test for discretionary function immunity.
  • Based on comity, is it reasonable to provide the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (FTB) with the same protection of California law, to grant FTB immunity from punitive damages.
  • Are medical records mandatory in order to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

What determines if a contract’s forum selection clause is permissive or mandatory?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Am. First Fed. Credit Union v. Soro (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Sep. 24, 2015)

The issue is whether a contract clause stating that the parties “submit themselves to the jurisdiction of” another state results in a mandatory forum selection clause requiring dismissal of a Nevada action.

In 2002, America First Federal Credit Union (the credit union) loaned $2 9 million, secured by real property in Mesquite, Nevada, to borrowers for the purchase of a liquor/mini- mart. The borrowers defaulted, and the credit union held a trustee’s sale, resulting in a deficiency on the loan balance of approximately $2.4 million. The Utah-based credit union sued the borrowers in Clark County to recover the deficiency.

The borrowers moved to dismiss the action under NRCP 12(b)(1), arguing that the credit union could not sue to recover the deficiency in Nevada and citing several clauses in the Commercial Promissory Note and Business Loan Agreement to support their argument. An Applicable Law clause in the loan agreement stated that “[t]his Agreement (and all loan documents in connection with this transaction) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah.” The loan agreement also contained the following: “Jurisdiction. The parties agree and submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Utah with regard to the subject matter of this agreement.” A clause in the note stated: “If there is a lawsuit, Borrower(s) agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the court in the county in which Lender is located.”

The district court agreed with the borrowers and granted the motion to dismiss. The district court found that the note and loan agreement contain language which clearly expressed the parties’ intent to submit litigation relating to the Agreement and the Note, to the jurisdiction of the State of Utah. The credit union appealed.

Continue reading “What determines if a contract’s forum selection clause is permissive or mandatory?” →