- law dawg
- 23 Comments
- 2817 Views
- Viral video shows arrest of two filmers. Did Metro retaliate for a rude comment? (Includes comments from Stephen Stubbs and Maggie McLetchie). [RJ]
- Grand jury indicts YouTuber for murder in Strip shooting. [KTNV]
- Latino lawmakers tour Southern Nevada ICE detention center; raise questions about due process. [TNI]
- Henderson police admit error leading to veteran’s wrongful arrest; eight days in jail. [8NewsNow]
- Judge ordered to act on labor law case following Nevada Supreme Court intervention. [This is Reno]
- Las Vegas medical clinic employee accused of sexual assault, faces lawsuit. [RJ]
- Family sues Life Time after man dies after tennis match. [RJ]
firstivus maximus
Maximus loserivus
Potes melius facere
Haec est stulta positio
vade in pace
et tibi
That sort of lazy investigation is what I came to expect from HPD over the years. I only ever encountered it once with LVMPD before retirement, but in Henderson, this felt like a monthly occurrence. Our team commonly found witnesses and evidence that any reasonable officer should have uncovered with ten minutes of substantive police work.
Can we hold a celebration of life ceremony on your tennis courts? Thanks, we are suing you.
Adding Lifetime as a defendant because their “layout” caused delays in the paramedics getting him from there to the ambulance? That’s a huge reach. It’s a huge square building gym – everything can’t be at the outer edge with outside doors. I am curious, though, why they took him to a further gym – if anyone involved (drivers, company owner, hospital) made a decision based on finances, that would be interesting to know.
P knows more than likely, Lifetime will eventually pay some dollars that will help finance the litigation. Welcome to America. There NEEDS to be a way to put risk on the P and possibly P attorney for the fees and costs Lifetime would incur if Lifetime successfully defends, i.e. first dollar of any settlement/judgment from any other liable party. The fee and cost leverage Ps have is out of control. Either that or Nevada needs to go the several liability only and non-party at fault system. The Nevada PI system is unfair. Anyone hear of equal protection and due process?
Spoken like a typical ID bro.
Or you know a local resident who is sick of being unable to find good doctors in town and paying three times what other states pay for car insurance because of typical PI bros and their frivolous claims.
Broooos please nooooo. We love you both so much.
–There NEEDS to be a way to put risk on the P and possibly P attorney for the fees and costs Lifetime would incur if Lifetime successfully defends, i.e. first dollar of any settlement/judgment from any other liable party.
https://nevada.public.law/statutes/nrs_17.117
and
Rule 68. Offers of Judgment
(a) The Offer. At any time more than 21 days before trial, any party may serve an offer in writing to allow judgment to be taken in accordance with its terms and conditions. Unless otherwise specified, an offer made under this rule is an offer to resolve all claims in the action between the parties to the date of the offer, including costs, expenses, interest, and if attorney fees are permitted by law or contract, attorney fees.
(b) Apportioned Conditional Offers. An apportioned offer of judgment to more than one party may be conditioned upon the acceptance by all parties to whom the offer is directed.
(c) Joint Unapportioned Offers.
(1) Multiple Offerors. A joint offer may be made by multiple offerors.
(2) Offers to Multiple Defendants. An offer made to multiple defendants will invoke the penalties of this rule only if:
(A) there is a single common theory of liability against all the offeree defendants, such as where the liability of some is entirely derivative of the others or where the liability of all is derivative of common acts by another; and
(B) the same entity, person, or group is authorized to decide whether to settle the claims against the offerees.
(3) Offers to Multiple Plaintiffs. An offer made to multiple plaintiffs will invoke the penalties of this rule only if:
(A) the damages claimed by all the offeree plaintiffs are solely derivative, such as where the damages claimed by some offerees are entirely derivative of an injury to the others or where the damages claimed by all offerees are derivative of an injury to another; and
(B) the same entity, person, or group is authorized to decide whether to settle the claims of the offerees.
(d) Acceptance of the Offer and Dismissal or Entry of Judgment.
(1) Within 14 days after service of the offer, the offeree may accept the offer by serving written notice that the offer is accepted.
(2) Within 21 days after service of written notice that the offer is accepted, the obligated party may pay the amount of the offer and obtain dismissal of the claims, rather than entry of a judgment.
(3) If the claims are not dismissed, at any time after 21 days after service of written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service. The clerk must then enter judgment accordingly. The court must allow costs in accordance with NRS 18.110 unless the terms of the offer preclude a separate award of costs. Any judgment entered under this section must be expressly designated a compromise settlement.
(e) Failure to Accept Offer. If the offer is not accepted within 14 days after service, it will be considered rejected by the offeree and deemed withdrawn by the offeror. Evidence of the offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs, expenses, and fees. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer. With offers to multiple offerees, each offeree may serve a separate acceptance of the apportioned offer, but if the offer is not accepted by all offerees, the action will proceed as to all. Any offeree who fails to accept the offer may be subject to the penalties of this rule.
(f) Penalties for Rejection of Offer.
(1) In General. If the offeree rejects an offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment:
(A) the offeree cannot recover any costs, expenses, or attorney fees and may not recover interest for the period after the service of the offer and before the judgment; and
(B) the offeree must pay the offeror’s post-offer costs and expenses, including a reasonable sum to cover any expenses incurred by the offeror for each expert witness whose services were reasonably necessary to prepare for and conduct the trial of the case, applicable interest on the judgment from the time of the offer to the time of entry of the judgment and reasonable attorney fees, if any be allowed, actually incurred by the offeror from the time of the offer. If the offeror’s attorney is collecting a contingent fee, the amount of any attorney fees awarded to the party for whom the offer is made must be deducted from that contingent fee.
(2) Multiple Offers. The penalties in this rule run from the date of service of the earliest rejected offer for which the offeree failed to obtain a more favorable judgment.
(g) How Costs, Expenses, Interest, and Attorney Fees Are Considered. To invoke the penalties of this rule, the court must determine if the offeree failed to obtain a more favorable judgment. If the offer provided that costs, expenses, interest, and if attorney fees are permitted by law or contract, attorney fees, would be added by the court, the court must compare the amount of the offer with the principal amount of the judgment, without inclusion of costs, expenses, interest, and if attorney fees are permitted by law or contract, attorney fees. If a party made an offer in a set amount that precluded a separate award of costs, expenses, interest, and if attorney fees are permitted by law or contract, attorney fees, the court must compare the amount of the offer, together with the offeree’s pre-offer taxable costs, expenses, interest, and if attorney fees are permitted by law or contract, attorney fees, with the principal amount of the judgment.
(h) Offers After Determination of Liability. When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict, order, or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of judgment, which has the same effect as an offer made before trial if it is served within a reasonable time not less than 14 days before the commencement of hearings to determine the amount or extent of liability.
[Amended; effective March 1, 2019.]
Ps don’t even care about OOJs. It’s unreal.
It’s because they’re all broke and judgment proof and the attorneys know they won’t be on the hook for it.
You really copied and pasted the entirety of Rule 68. Good Lord. Shame on you.
OJs are useless. See my prior comment at 1:52 pm above. How about, all parties bear damages in proportion to their share of fault. If P doesn’t name an at fault D, I can name them as a non-party at fault and have liability apportioned to them on the verdict form. I wish some defendant group would appeal this on equal protection – due process grounds. Is the Nevada legislature owned by the P bar?
To your last question – yes.
Boggles my mind ind to think the P bar has more stroke than the gaming industry.
The average voter is far more likely to be injured at a casino than they are to own a casino.
Wait until they hear about NRS 41.0336 and the $100k (?) cap even if you get around it. This was City of Henderson, Not AMR per the complaint. AMR has taken a few hits over the years. Oh, and causation. Good luck with that one too.
This case screams defense verdict.