Our Results Archive
  • Feb 17, 2016
    Eisinger & Parks Win Subsidiary Liability Case

    Earlier today a Nevada federal judge granted summary judgment in a case against a resort company that sought to hold it liable for alleged negligence of its subsidiary in Aruba. A Canadian citizen traveled to a resort on Aruba owned by a subsidiary. While there she tripped, fell and asserted an injury. Rather than suing the subsidiary in Aruba, the guest returned home, and then filed suit in Nevada against the subsidiary’s parent company. She claimed the parent and subsidiary were alter egos, meaning the parent could be liable for the subsidiary’s negligence.

    Paul Eisinger and Kathy Parks represented the resort parent company. They repeatedly noted throughout the case that the wrong company was sued, that Nevada lacked jurisdiction over the Aruba subsidiary, and that Dutch personal injury law would likely apply. The guest ignored these warnings and proceeded with the lawsuit. At the end of discovery, Mr. Eisinger and Ms. Parks argued to the court that there was no evidence of anything but a typical corporate parent-subsidiary relationship. There was no basis to find the parent was an alter ego of the subsidiary or to hold the parent liable if the subsidiary had actually been negligent.

    The court agreed and dismissed the case. First, the court noted that the guest’s alter ego argument was based upon an incorrect reading of the company’s form 10-K filings about its corporate structure. Second, the fact that the two companies had two directors in common was insufficient. Finally, there was no evidence that corporate formalities to establish and maintain separation had been breached.

  • Dec 18, 2015
    Diamond Helps Kids in Pro Bono Case

    Shareholder Kevin Diamond accepted a pro bono case to represent three children in a trial seeking to terminate their parents’ parental rights. Sadly, the children’s mother had fallen victim to drug abuse and the father was incarcerated for numerous offenses. Nevada’s Department of Family Services concluded the children were at risk in this environment and would be best served if they were removed from their parents. The Department went to court to accomplish this and Mr. Diamond was appointed to separately represent the children.

    Before trial, Mr. Diamond successfully terminated the mother’s rights. The father insisted upon trial. At trial, Mr. Diamond was assisted by law clerk Matthew Winters. Mr. Winters volunteered to help and was permitted to participate in trial by Nevada’s program encouraging law students to gain experience by participating in pro bono work. The trial was a success for the children as the father capitulated and agreed to terminate his rights shortly before Mr. Winters was to cross-examine him. All three children may now be formally adopted by a loving family member in the near future.

    “Assisting children as clients is a difficult situation,” says Winters. “Here they were too young to understand what was happening other than that they might go to live with a family member. Our goal was to provide these children a better opportunity in the future by providing them stability in their home life they never had before.” Diamond added, “here, stability is exactly what was achieved as the children will all be adopted by a family member and continue to grow up together as opposed to living in split foster homes. Pro bono cases like these are exactly what makes practicing law very rewarding, especially right before the holidays.”

  • Sep 22, 2015
    Plaintiff Spoliates Evidence; Case Dismissed

    Today a local court dismissed a product liability case brought against a mobility device manufacturer. A person with disabilities was using a power scooter and was injured. The person asserted the injuries occurred because the power scooter was defective and notified the manufacturer. The manufacturer wrote the person and asked that he preserve the power scooter so it could be inspected.

    The person later filed a lawsuit and the manufacturer hired shareholder Brian K. Terry to defend it. When Mr. Terry asked to inspect the power scooter, as had been anticipated, the person advised the power scooter had been discarded. No inspection was ever performed.

    Mr. Terry asked the court to dismiss the case. The person alleged the power scooter was defective but the manufacturer was never given an opportunity to evaluate the power scooter and determine what happened. The person argued for an adverse inference or presumption in lieu of dismissal, which may be appropriate in mere negligence cases. The court agreed with Mr. Terry that such an analysis does not apply to product liability cases. The court then dismissed the case.

  • Sep 4, 2015
    Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal

    Legal malpractice claims can harm a lawyer’s public and private reputations. A strong defense is important to protecting those hard earned reputations. Shareholder Brian Terry routinely defends these cases and was retained to defend a local judge who was sued by a client arising from a conviction when the judge was in private practice. Mr. Terry successfully moved to dismiss the case, before discovery ever started, because the judge had been appointed to defend the criminal via a public defender program. The Supreme Court of Nevada has ruled attorneys functioning in that capacity are protected by sovereign immunity.

    The plaintiff then appealed, arguing the case should be reinstated. The case was assigned to Nevada’s Court of Appeals that opened in 2015 to relieve the appellate backlog. After briefing from Mr. Terry, the Court unanimously concluded the client had either waived these arguments or, even if not, then the errors still did not overcome the various hurdles to reinstating the case.

    “This was an extremely dubious claim, and the newly instituted Court of Appeals brought the appeal to resolution expeditiously,” said Mr. Terry.

  • Aug 18, 2015
    City Vindicated Before EEOC

    In April 2012 a former City of West Wendover employee filed a discrimination claim against the City with the with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The employee alleged the City discriminated against him due to his national origin and disabilities under the Americans with Disability Act. The EEOC investigated for three years and recently advised the City it will not proceed with any further investigation of the employees allegations.

    Shareholder Philip Goodhart represented the City in this investigation. Although the EEOC’s investigation was lengthy, he was pleased that justice was eventually served. "Throughout this investigation the City complied with every EEOC request. City made every reasonable attempt to accommodate the employee's physical restrictions and limitations," said Mr. Goodhart.

  • Jul 30, 2015
    Supreme Court Rules on Third-Party Bad Faith in Nevada

    For years, claimants’ counsel in Nevada have argued that NRS 485.3091 gives standing to a third-party claimant to sue a third-party insurer for bad faith. Nevada Direct Insurance Company hired Douglas J. Duesman to defend it against one case that argued this point. The district court agreed with Mr. Duesman that NRS 485.3091 does not provide standing and dismissed this section of the complaint. The remainder of the case was tried and defensed.

    On appeal the claimant continued to argue NRS 485.3091 provided standing. The Supreme Court of Nevada concluded “nothing in the statute grants a third-party claimant an independent cause of action for bad faith against an insurer.” Although the Court did conclude that the insured’s failure to cooperate in defense did not eliminate Nevada’s mandatory minimum coverage, it refused to permit the independent cause of action for bad faith.

    “The Court answered a question that has been driving a lot of litigation locally,” said Mr. Duesman. “This ruling appropriately defines to whom an insurer owes a duty.”

  • Jun 11, 2015
    Court Dismisses Bad Faith Claim Defended by Terry

    Merely moving from state A to state B does not mean you get to then sue people from state A in state B. Yet this is the factual scenario confronting an insurance company who hired Brian K. Terry to defend it from a bad faith claim. The company operated exclusively in one east coast state. Two residents of that state bought an insurance policy. They later moved to Nevada and tried to sue the insurance company for allegedly breaching its obligations under the insurance policy.

    Mr. Terry recommended the company file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The company had never done business in Nevada. It instead sold a policy to people in another state based on that state’s laws.

    Today United States District Court Judge Andrew Gordon granted the motion. “The key question is one of due process: would it be fair, based on [the company]’s contacts with Nevada, for it to expect to have to defend itself in a Nevada court. I find that it would not be fair.”

  • Jun 5, 2015
    Plaintiff Folds Days Before Trial

    The mere fact that an accident happened does not mean that someone was negligent and responsible for the damage. A guest at a casino in Las Vegas tripped, fell and was injured in the parking lot. The fall was on video and the injury was a broken bone, but the casino found nothing wrong with the parking lot and denied the guest’s request for compensation.

    The guest filed a lawsuit and the casino hired Las Vegas shareholder Kevin Diamond to defend it. Throughout discovery, Diamond too found nothing wrong with the parking lot. The guest hired an expert witness who examined the scene three years later and argued a joint in the parking lot’s surface was 0.125” too tall. Under deposition questioning, the expert conceded that because the joint was designed to move and he could not correlate his finding to the date when the guest fell three years earlier.

    As trial neared, Mr. Diamond filed a motion to exclude all of the guest’s medical damages because she had not disclosed expert witnesses to discuss them. After a contentious hearing, the judge granted the motion almost completely. The guest claimed the fall had cost her more than $62,000 in medical costs, but because she had not properly disclosed expert witnesses, at trial she could only discuss $2,300 of these costs. After this ruling, the case settled on very favorable terms for the casino.

    “I credit the client for sticking to its defense in this case,” said Diamond afterwards. “The casino did nothing wrong and the guest never proved otherwise.”

  • Jun 1, 2015
    Court of Appeals Affirms Litigation Privilege Ruling

    The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment attorneys Brian Terry and Greg Schulman won for their client. The attorney-client had recorded a lis pendens on the claimant’s Nevada property based upon litigation claims in a California lawsuit. The property owner then sued the attorney, arguing he had slandered the property’s title because the lis pendens prevented the property’s sale for a profit before the Nevada real estate market crashed.

    The district court had granted summary judgment to the attorney for several reasons, including that the lis pendens was covered by the litigation privilege. This absolute privilege protects people from civil liability based upon communications published during the course of a lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed but the Court of Appeals affirmed.

  • May 21, 2015
    Diamond Helps Contractor Obtain License

    Shareholder Kevin Diamond appeared in front of the Nevada State Contractors Board for a client attempting to obtain a concrete cutting contractors license. The client's application had been denied on three prior occasions, before Diamond’s involvement. The client’s Qualified Employee was involved in an altercation seven years ago which resulted in a misdemeanor battery conviction. The prior denials were based upon the Contractors Board’s belief that the prior misdemeanor rendered the qualifying employee and therefore the client unfit for a license. Diamond argued that the employee was forthright about the prior conviction, paid his restitution and acknowledged a poor decision. However, the qualifying employee had no problems in seven years and is an active member of a number of charitable organizations. Diamond further argued that the Board should allow the employee and the company the ability to move forward. The Board agreed, granting the license.

    Diamond stated “I believe the Board realized that the qualifying employee paid his dues, owned up to his mistake and as a result should be allowed to be a productive member of the construction community in Las Vegas”.