News - Tharpe & Howell - Litigation and Transaction Lawyers

Home > News > Nevada Supreme Court Ruling Could Make Dismissals Easier

NEVADA SUPREME COURT RULING COULD MAKE DISMISSALS EASIER

An article written by Sean Whaley (Review-Journal Capital Bureau), and published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, points out that a recent decision by the Nevada Supreme Court may make case dismissals easier.

The article is quoted as stating:

"The Nevada Supreme Court has issued a ruling that some legal experts believe will make it easier to dismiss civil cases before they go to trial.

In its opinion, the court said the 'slightest doubt' standard, which has been used in Nevada since 1954, was undermined by two U.S. Supreme Court cases in 1986. Under that standard, the dismissal of a case, called summary judgment, is prohibited when there is the slightest doubt about the facts of a case.

However, the court said in its opinion that for summary judgment to be rejected, there must be a factual issue that would have to be determined by a jury at a trial.

There was disagreement among experts over the significance of the ruling." A Las Vegas attorney is quoted in the article as saying 'It's a slight setback for the plaintiff primarily, but at the end of the day it is probably not going to make much of a difference.' 'It is probably just bringing (the court's) legal writing up to reality.'

However, the article also mentioned that Ann McGinley, a law professor at the Boyd Law School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 'believes the decision is significant, not only because of the summary judgment change but also because of how the court ruled in the specific case.'

The article described the background of the ruling as "The court's opinion came in the case of a mentally disabled woman from Carson City who was sexually assaulted by a janitorial company employee while she worked for Safeway Stores Inc. The decision issued Thursday upheld the dismissal of the case against both Safeway and the janitorial company, Action Cleaning, Inc.

Jane Doe's attorney cited the 'slightest doubt' standard in the case. But the court said the standard is an incorrect statement of the law...

The court noted it has ruled on summary judgment appeals using a strong standard. A party should not be able to fight off a ruling for summary judgment by relying 'on the gossamer threads off whimsy, speculation and conjecture,' the court said in an earlier case.

Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by Emilio Ronquillo-Nino, a night janitor for Action Cleaning. She was hired under a special program and worked as a grocery bagger.

Doe was assaulted three times while on the Safeway premises. As a result, she became pregnant and gave birth. She sued through her guardian claiming negligent failure to train employees and maintain a safe work environment, among other causes of action.

Carson District Judge William Maddox dismissed the civil lawsuit against Safeway because the business was immune through its coverage provided by the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act.

The case against Action Cleaning was dismissed because it was not liable for the intentional acts of its employee that were not reasonably foreseeable. The lower court found Ronquillo-Nino had no prior record in Mexico or the U.S.

But McGinley said the supreme court did not appear to address Doe's claim of sexual harassment against Safeway, an issue that is not covered by workers compensation law. And there were questions of fact about the liability of Action Cleaning regarding its responsibility for its employee's actions that should have gone to a jury, she said."

http://

Related Practice Area(s):
General Litigation