On April 21, 2014, Angela Nakamura Ochoa successfully prosecuted a bench trial in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. This lead to judgment for the full amount sought on behalf of her client, an automobile leasing company, located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The case required application of both Ohio and Nevada law, as there was a choice of law provision in the lease agreements. Prior to trial, Ms. Ochoa obtained partial summary judgment as to liability against defendants, leaving solely the issue of damages at the time of trial.
On January 31, 2014 Bill Ebert and Sunny Jeong, acting as second chair, represented the assistant buffet manager of a prominent Las Vegas casino in a short trial in Clark County. This is a type of trial that occurs before a four member jury with all attorney presentations completed in one day.
Our client was specifically named as a party defendant, and was alleged to have orchestrated the various intentional misconduct directed toward plaintiff, who sought compensatory and punitive damages. Our client and the casino were sued on multiple theories, including, negligence, false imprisonment, infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The casino was represented by separate counsel.
At the outset of the case, Mr. Ebert was able to prevent the case from being moved out of the time and cost effective program which results in short trials. This limited the client’s exposure to $50,000. After approximately 11 hours of proceedings and a fairly short deliberation, the jury came back with a unanimous decision in favor of our client and the casino. Our client was very grateful and appreciative of our pre-trial preparation and conduct of the trial.
Karen Smyth recently completed the requirements for the Litigation Management Institute at Columbia University Law School in New York and was awarded the designation of Certified Litigation Management Professional (C. L. M. P.).
The Litigation Management Institute is the first certification program specifically designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the business of litigation management. The program is designed to bridge the gap between legal theory and litigation strategy, and the business aspects of litigation management. Sponsored by the Claims & Litigation Management Alliance, admission is limited to certain experienced attorneys and executives in the litigation management field.
“It was an honor to take part in the rigorous litigation management course and be recognized as one of a select group of attorneys with CLMP designation,” said Ms. Smyth “A big thank you to the Litigation Management Institute and the Claims Litigation Management Alliance for bringing industry leaders together to participate in a unique and interactive forum hosted at Columbia Law School. The knowledge gained will certainly benefit our clients.”
Recent Nevada Supreme Court Advance Opinion examines the statute of limitations discovery rule applicable to legal malpractice actions.
Allowing varying accrual dates for litigation and transactional malpractice claims undermines the discovery rule.
Sierra International, Inc. (“Sierra”) entered into a $1.4 million promissory note with Appellant Moon (“Moon”). Sierra eventually defaulted on the promissory note and filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition in Bankruptcy Court in 2001. Moon hired McDonald Carano Wilson, LLP (“MCW”) to represent their interests in Sierra’s bankruptcy action. Sierra’s bankruptcy action concluded in 2008.
In the interim, on November 3, 2006, Moon filed an action against MCW alleging (1) professional negligence, (2) breach of contract, and (3) vicarious liability arising out of its representation of Moon in Sierra’s bankruptcy action. (“First Complaint”) In 2008, the District Court dismissed Moon’s lawsuit without prejudice because Moon failed to comply with discovery requirements. Moon appealed the dismissal, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
Nearly four years later, on October 20, 2010, Moon filed a second action against MCW reasserting the same claims contained in the First Complaint. (“Second Complaint”) In March 2011, MCW filed a motion to dismiss the Second Complaint arguing the case was time–barred under Nevada’s discovery rule: NRS 11.207(1). (“Statutory Discovery Rule”)
NRS 11.207(1) provides an action for legal malpractice must be commenced within four years after the plaintiff sustains damage, or within two years after the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the material facts constituting the cause of action; whichever occurs earlier.
MCW argued that the Statutory Discovery Rule governs Moon’s professional malpractice claim, and based on… click here for the full article as published in the August 2013 issue of the LPL eAdvisory, an eNewsletter from the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Lawyers’ Professional Liability.
Lipson Neilson and the Center for Estate Planning, in conjunction with the American Heart Association, hosted a free seminar and heart healthy dinner on October 15, 2013 at the La Sala Banquet Center, located inside of Papa Joe’s in Rochester Hills. Steven Malach was one of the featured guest speakers of the evening. He spoke on the matter of Wills, Trusts & Your Legacy. Also speaking at the event on Tuesday was Dr. Pamela A. Marcovitz, Director of Ministrelli Women’s Heart Center of Beaumont in Royal Oak, who spoke on Matters of the Heart for Women.
Las Vegas attorneys Joseph Garin and Stephen Keim successfully obtained judgment as a matter of law in favor of a local real estate broker in a United States District Court, District of Nevada lawsuit. Plaintiff’s claims involved violation of state security laws, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract claims which it sought to hold the firm’s client responsible for under the theory of respondeat superior. After three and half days of trial, at the completion of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief, Mr. Garin moved for judgment as a matter of law. The Court granted Mr. Garin’s motion finding Plaintiff failed to establish it sustained any damages as a result of the real estate broker’s actions. As the prevailing party, a post-trial motion for the recovery of fees and costs incurred by the client in the defense of the case remain pending.