Uber-backed proposal seeks 20% cap on attorney fees in civil cases. [TNI]
Opinion: Brekhus, Church take their hero’s journey through the courtroom. [TNI]
In a letter timed with President Biden’s visit today, Gov. Lombardo urges the president to make more public land available for housing development. [TNI]
Las Vegas Realtors worried after proposed lawsuit settlement. [8NewsNow]
New fridge stops working: LACSN attorney Peter Aldous says customer can’t demand refund. [KTNV]
LACSN housing attorneys, including Harrison Bohn, providing help for residents facing eviction right outside of courtroom. [Fox5Vegas]
We haven’t seen a press release yet, but from yesterday’s comments and the Commission on Judicial Selection website, congratulations to Erika Mendoza on appointment to the bench in Department 27.
If you want to end the housing crisis, a good start would be eliminating single family zoning and parking minimums. Not everyone wants to or can afford to live in a SFH. Building deeper and deeper into the farthest reaches of Clark County is not the solution (never was).
Guest
Anonymous
March 19, 2024 11:54 am
Regarding the Uber backed initiative, I wonder if the lawyer groups will fight back and bring initiatives against Uber, like regulating “surge pricing”, mandating UIM for rideshare and outlawing confidentiality as a requirement to settle. I can see this easily blowing up in Uber’s face. Uber does not have a good track record or PR history with how it treats its workers or the public.
People love Uber, which is why they are the face of this. Would they agree to cap how much insurance companies can spend on attorney’s fees in defending lawsuits?
That’s what I hope NJA does. File a ballot initiative that caps insurance defense fees at X% of policy limits. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Run ads that blame increased premiums on insurance defense counsel and insurance companies litigating claims that should have paid out.
We shouldn’t lose sight of who else is in this coalition backing the initiative. It’s not just Uber; it’s also the Retail Association of Nevada (self-proclaimed “mom and pop” small business retail shop owners) and the Nevada Trucking Association.
A couple of years ago, someone was reprimanded for employing a waiver agreement in an attempt to get around the med mal fee caps. But to the best of my knowledge the validity of the waiver was never actually litigated, and neither was the issue of whether the cap itself was valid based on any type of constitutional or public policy (access to justice) type of argument.
Not sure I can agree with 12:39 that people love Uber. Maybe in 2005 or 2010 the company could have still masqueraded as a “disruptive” market entrant and fooled us with doctored photos of some Silicon Valley garage full of hoodie-decked programmers clacking deep into the night powered by energy drinks, wild dreams, and limitless ambition. In 2024? Uber is just another surveillance capitalist who rose to prominence through regulatory arbitrage, who used their bottomless VC money to drive out competition a la Cornelius Vanderbilt, then poured their profits into lobbying efforts to kneecap legislation aimed at providing fair wages to their drivers. An Uber driver in New Orleans recently told me Uber is taking something like 50 to 70 percent of his ride fare, and will randomly change its vig by orders of magnitude with very little notice. I’m sure the majority of drivers simply cannot sustain themselves on the wages provided by Uber’s business model. And… why? Uber doesn’t provide cars, doesn’t have to pay for medallions, and its dispatch office is an algorithm. Despite all of these claimed “efficiencies” in service delivery, Uber’s solution to jurisdictions that pass substantial worker protections, like Minneapolis, is simply to declare they’re leaving them. Moreover, their business model literally depends on turning its customers and clients alike into a geolocational zoo exhibit, and the company has leaned into its own inherent creepiness full tilt. Do an internet search for Uber’s “Rides of Glory” or “God Mode” if you don’t agree. This company is almost as toxic as the NSO Group, and the idea that a social predator like this will win the battle of hearts and minds at the ballot box is absolutely laughable.
Regardless of whether there’s going to be any organized resistance to this initiative, I can guarantee you that many plaintiff’s attorneys in the Valley will begin looking very carefully into Uber’s motives for pursuing the same. Uber wouldn’t have stuck their necks out on this issue unless they have a colossal problem lurking under the surface that they’re trying to preempt, and once it’s uncovered, the attorney who finds it won’t care at all whether this initiative passes. 20 percent of a class settlement should be good enough of a contingency for anyone, especially if the class contains more people than that attorney could ever hope to represent individually. And I doubt there will only be one theory of liability for such bet-the-company litigation. I for one am extremely interested to know whether two people, sitting in the same place, calling for the same Uber car going to the same final destination at virtually the same time, would be presented with different rates for the same ride.
And then they will just leave the market like they are in Minneapolis. The parasites will have destroyed their hosts.
I think a majority of people think lawyers are greedy. This is without even knowing the intricacies of the doctor/lawyer/litigation loan aspects of cases that ultimately leave most of the money on a case with the doctor/lawyer/litigation lenders. This is my anecdotal, unscientific survey. People may think big companies are bad, but that is a harder message to get to resonate during campaigns. With the lawyers and marketing we have in this town it will probably be easy to get to the reptile side of voters’ brains and against the lawyers. In the end I think more people will care that lawyers are purportedly making their uber rides more than about Uber’s practices.
The doctors cleaned house against the med mal lawyers (and that actually sucks because nothing the doctors frightened the voters with was true). I suspect they may do it again. But NJA will probably have success mitigating the effects in future legislative sessions.
Guest
Anonymous
March 19, 2024 8:30 pm
The Uber initiative would absolutely decimate the PI industry here and give the insurance companies free rein to do as they please. Very very bad idea.
She is a democratically elected judge who followed the law — something that her voters were confident she would do. If you don’t like it, move to Alabama where the laws are different. Best of luck to you in the deep South, sir.
A lack of oral argument means nothing. Most federal court decisions don’t use oral argument, and a large majority of state court arguments would do well to follow that example. Want to tell the court something? Put it in a brief. Want to really make sure the court understands that a point is important? Write more effectively.
Zero chance she read the briefs to come up with what was actually a foregone conclusion. She should’ve heard them out, just to avoid that particular appeal issue, rookie mistake made when trying to push an actual agenda instead of issue an unbiased and legally sound ruling.
Side question:
With Nevada’s compliance with Obamacare being the Medicaid route, doesn’t this actually provoke a federal question? Even a little bit?
If I could combine the 30-60 day turnaround of state court with the no hearings of federal court, I’d be a happy camper. It’s the waiting for 8-18 months for an order in federal court that is a drag. File a motion to dismiss, don’t find out how it turns out until after discovery…. thereby defeating the purpose of the motion to dismiss.
How did she change Nevada law? The voters amended the Nevada Equal Rights Amendment into the Nevada Constitution. This is one opinion recognizing one legal consequence of that amendment.
If you want to end the housing crisis, a good start would be eliminating single family zoning and parking minimums. Not everyone wants to or can afford to live in a SFH. Building deeper and deeper into the farthest reaches of Clark County is not the solution (never was).
Regarding the Uber backed initiative, I wonder if the lawyer groups will fight back and bring initiatives against Uber, like regulating “surge pricing”, mandating UIM for rideshare and outlawing confidentiality as a requirement to settle. I can see this easily blowing up in Uber’s face. Uber does not have a good track record or PR history with how it treats its workers or the public.
People love Uber, which is why they are the face of this. Would they agree to cap how much insurance companies can spend on attorney’s fees in defending lawsuits?
That’s what I hope NJA does. File a ballot initiative that caps insurance defense fees at X% of policy limits. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Run ads that blame increased premiums on insurance defense counsel and insurance companies litigating claims that should have paid out.
Sounds like a great idea. Can you donate the $10 million it cost to run these initiates.
We shouldn’t lose sight of who else is in this coalition backing the initiative. It’s not just Uber; it’s also the Retail Association of Nevada (self-proclaimed “mom and pop” small business retail shop owners) and the Nevada Trucking Association.
A couple of years ago, someone was reprimanded for employing a waiver agreement in an attempt to get around the med mal fee caps. But to the best of my knowledge the validity of the waiver was never actually litigated, and neither was the issue of whether the cap itself was valid based on any type of constitutional or public policy (access to justice) type of argument.
Not sure I can agree with 12:39 that people love Uber. Maybe in 2005 or 2010 the company could have still masqueraded as a “disruptive” market entrant and fooled us with doctored photos of some Silicon Valley garage full of hoodie-decked programmers clacking deep into the night powered by energy drinks, wild dreams, and limitless ambition. In 2024? Uber is just another surveillance capitalist who rose to prominence through regulatory arbitrage, who used their bottomless VC money to drive out competition a la Cornelius Vanderbilt, then poured their profits into lobbying efforts to kneecap legislation aimed at providing fair wages to their drivers. An Uber driver in New Orleans recently told me Uber is taking something like 50 to 70 percent of his ride fare, and will randomly change its vig by orders of magnitude with very little notice. I’m sure the majority of drivers simply cannot sustain themselves on the wages provided by Uber’s business model. And… why? Uber doesn’t provide cars, doesn’t have to pay for medallions, and its dispatch office is an algorithm. Despite all of these claimed “efficiencies” in service delivery, Uber’s solution to jurisdictions that pass substantial worker protections, like Minneapolis, is simply to declare they’re leaving them. Moreover, their business model literally depends on turning its customers and clients alike into a geolocational zoo exhibit, and the company has leaned into its own inherent creepiness full tilt. Do an internet search for Uber’s “Rides of Glory” or “God Mode” if you don’t agree. This company is almost as toxic as the NSO Group, and the idea that a social predator like this will win the battle of hearts and minds at the ballot box is absolutely laughable.
Regardless of whether there’s going to be any organized resistance to this initiative, I can guarantee you that many plaintiff’s attorneys in the Valley will begin looking very carefully into Uber’s motives for pursuing the same. Uber wouldn’t have stuck their necks out on this issue unless they have a colossal problem lurking under the surface that they’re trying to preempt, and once it’s uncovered, the attorney who finds it won’t care at all whether this initiative passes. 20 percent of a class settlement should be good enough of a contingency for anyone, especially if the class contains more people than that attorney could ever hope to represent individually. And I doubt there will only be one theory of liability for such bet-the-company litigation. I for one am extremely interested to know whether two people, sitting in the same place, calling for the same Uber car going to the same final destination at virtually the same time, would be presented with different rates for the same ride.
And then they will just leave the market like they are in Minneapolis. The parasites will have destroyed their hosts.
I think a majority of people think lawyers are greedy. This is without even knowing the intricacies of the doctor/lawyer/litigation loan aspects of cases that ultimately leave most of the money on a case with the doctor/lawyer/litigation lenders. This is my anecdotal, unscientific survey. People may think big companies are bad, but that is a harder message to get to resonate during campaigns. With the lawyers and marketing we have in this town it will probably be easy to get to the reptile side of voters’ brains and against the lawyers. In the end I think more people will care that lawyers are purportedly making their uber rides more than about Uber’s practices.
The doctors cleaned house against the med mal lawyers (and that actually sucks because nothing the doctors frightened the voters with was true). I suspect they may do it again. But NJA will probably have success mitigating the effects in future legislative sessions.
The Uber initiative would absolutely decimate the PI industry here and give the insurance companies free rein to do as they please. Very very bad idea.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/judge-orders-nevada-medicaid-to-cover-abortion-services-3019873/amp/
Hot-tub-boobs Ballou back at it again… changes Nevada law and doesn’t even allow oral argument. Absolutely insane.
She is a democratically elected judge who followed the law — something that her voters were confident she would do. If you don’t like it, move to Alabama where the laws are different. Best of luck to you in the deep South, sir.
We will see whether she “followed the law” when the NVSC issues the inevitable opinion on appeal
I think as a policy decision, this decision is prudent. As a legal decision, Judge Ballou’s ruling fails miserably.
Thanks Judge B or her minion.
🙄
Is anyone really surprised by this? I mean, come on.
If the AG’s office was on the other side – no not really surprised at all.
A lack of oral argument means nothing. Most federal court decisions don’t use oral argument, and a large majority of state court arguments would do well to follow that example. Want to tell the court something? Put it in a brief. Want to really make sure the court understands that a point is important? Write more effectively.
Zero chance she read the briefs to come up with what was actually a foregone conclusion. She should’ve heard them out, just to avoid that particular appeal issue, rookie mistake made when trying to push an actual agenda instead of issue an unbiased and legally sound ruling.
Side question:
With Nevada’s compliance with Obamacare being the Medicaid route, doesn’t this actually provoke a federal question? Even a little bit?
If I could combine the 30-60 day turnaround of state court with the no hearings of federal court, I’d be a happy camper. It’s the waiting for 8-18 months for an order in federal court that is a drag. File a motion to dismiss, don’t find out how it turns out until after discovery…. thereby defeating the purpose of the motion to dismiss.
How did she change Nevada law? The voters amended the Nevada Equal Rights Amendment into the Nevada Constitution. This is one opinion recognizing one legal consequence of that amendment.