Upcoming Hearings

October 2022 Hearings

October 12, 2022*

Ashley Colwick v. Dicks Last Resort, et. al.  

A-22-855123-C

Case Summary: This matter arises from an obscene incident that occurred on September 26, 2021, when Plaintiffs Ashley Colwick and Jacob Colwick, along with Ashley’s sister, brother-in-law, and friend visited Defendant Dick’s Fremont, LLC d/b/a Dick’s Last Resort. Defendant Richard Benjamin was working in the course and scope of his employment as a waiter at Dick’s Last Resort when Plaintiffs were seated in Benjamin’s section of the restaurant. After Plaintiffs were seated, Benjamin introduced himself and asked Plaintiffs if they wanted to order drinks. As Ashley was looking at the “Show Me Your Booze” section on the menu, Benjamin commented to Ashley, “Hey, you got some nice ones,” in reference to Ashley’s breasts. Benjamin then put his pen on Ashley’s shirt and, using his pen, proceeded to move her shirt away until he exposed the areola of her breast. After openly exposing Ashley’s breast for public view, Benjamin commented, “Nice nipple piercing.” As a result of Benjamin’s conduct, Ashley felt violated, disgusted, and embarrassed, and continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and difficulty sleeping with nightmares and flashbacks of the exposure.

Motion: 

(1) Defendant Dick Fremont’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike

On September 9, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike arguing that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth Causes of Action and strike the screenshot reviews contained in the First Amended Complaint. According to Defendant, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for negligence per se because NRS 201.220, as a criminal statute, cannot form the basis for a negligence per se claim. Defendant also argues that the injury Ashley suffered is not of the type that NRS 201.220 was designed to protect against. However, the Nevada Supreme Court has only prohibited the application of negligence per se to criminal statutes in two contexts, neither of which apply here. Moreover, the unwanted and nonconsensual exposure of a woman’s breasts, such as Ashley’s in this case, is one of the types of injuries that NRS 201.220 was intended to prevent.

Next, Defendant contends that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because Plaintiffs failed to plead the “physical impact” element as required under Nevada law. However, because Plaintiffs are only bringing one claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the bystander theory, they were not required to allege any “physical impact.”

Finally, Defendant argues that the Court should strike the screenshot reviews contained in the First Amended Complaint pursuant to NRCP 12(f). However, Plaintiffs argue that not only is granting motions to strike under NRCP 12(f) strongly disfavored, but Defendant failed to show that the screenshot reviews are unresponsive and unrelated to the claims at issue in this case.

 

DATE TBD

Orly Graves v. Steven Marovitz  

A-20-820741-C

Case Summary: This case arises out of physical assault and battery by Defendant Steven Marovitz on Plaintiff Orly Graves while she was working at the Wynn Casino and Resort. On December 6, 2019, Mr. Marovitz was in Las Vegas, Nevada, residing as a guest at the Wynn Las Vegas. That same evening, Mr. Marovitz arrived at a table game in the area that Ms. Graves was supervising at the time. As Mr. Marovitz was gambling, he assaulted Ms. Graves by grabbing her right hand and licking it with his tongue. Ms. Graves immediately withdrew her hand while Mr. Marovitz took his other hand and tried to wipe off the slobber he left on her hand. Ms. Graves immediately left the area where Mr. Marovitz was gambling, approached a podium, and wiped her hand with a sanitizer wipe. A short time after the initial assault, Mr. Marovitz again assaulted Ms. Graves, this time by grabbing her and placing her in a “bear hold” while Ms. Graves was trying to hit him at his sides so that he would release her from his grip.

Thereafter, Mr. Marovitz laughed as one of his friends told him to stop because he was out of line. After the second incident, Ms. Graves left the casino floor to go on break. At 11:15 p.m., Ms. Graves returned to the casino floor to her workstation where Mr. Marovitz was still at the table game with his friends. The final assault occurred when Mr. Marovitz approached Ms. Graves from behind, grabbed her body, and then grabbed her head, turning it toward himself as he tried to force his tongue into her mouth. Shortly after the final assault, a casino manager arrived in the area and Ms. Graves was replaced by another floor person. The casino manager spoke with Mr. Marovitz and at approximately 11:41 p.m., Mr. Marovitz and his friends left the table game and general area. After an investigation of the incidents, Mr. Marovitz was trespassed from the Wynn Las Vegas, on December 7, 2019, at 11:20 p.m., and a “Be On the Look Out” was issued by the Wynn Las Vegas.

Motion: 

(1) Plaintiff’s Objection to Discovery Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations

On August 15, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Independent Medical Examination on Order Shortening time. Defendant requests that Plaintiff undergo a Rule 35 Examination by Dr. Gregory Brown, a forensic psychiatrist. Defendant argued that based on Plaintiff’s prior medical treatment with her treating physician, Behzad Kermani, M.D., who is neither a psychologist or a psychiatrist, Plaintiff has opened the door for a second Rule 35 examination by a forensic psychiatrist who can opine on psychological conditions and medications.

On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Independent Medical Examination. Therein, Plaintiff argued that prior to the subject incident, Plaintiff sought treatment from Dr. Kermani for various unrelated medical conditions, as well as generalized stress and anxiety related to her lack of sleep and family-related stress. As a result, Dr. Kermani prescribed Plaintiff with anti-depressants to help relieve her stress and to help her sleep. Importantly, Plaintiff never sought treatment with a mental health provider and was never diagnosed with any mental health ailments prior to the subject incident. Further, Plaintiff was never prescribed any medications to treat the psychological conditions she developed as a result of the subject incident—post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Lastly, Plaintiff never continued taking the medication to treat her generalized stress and anxiety and is not currently taking any medications as a result of her prior treatment or this incident.

As a result of the subject incident, Plaintiff suffers from anxiety, PTSD, and depression. Thereafter, Plaintiff began treating with a therapist and a psychologist to address her general emotional distress claims. Plaintiff continues to treat with a psychologist to assess her symptoms through behavioral intervention methods, not medication management. Importantly, Plaintiff has not alleged that she is suffering from any psychiatric conditions as a result of the subject sexual assault. Plaintiff further has not sought any treatment with a psychiatrist as a result of the subject sexual assault. Moreover, at Defendant’s request, Plaintiff has already undergone an 8-hour independent psychological examination by Dr. John Paglini. As such, Defendant cannot demonstrate good cause to require Plaintiff to undergo a second independent medical examination in this matter because his request is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and not proportional to the needs of this case. Lastly, even if good cause was shown, Defendant failed to specifically identify any details regarding the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination.

On August 26, 2022, the parties argued their respective positions before Discovery Commissioner Jay Young. After hearing oral argument from counsel, Discovery Commissioner Jay Young found that because additional information was disclosed by Plaintiff in her deposition testimony, responses to written discovery, and Plaintiff’s supplemental disclosure of records from Dr. Kermani after the initial Rule 35 Examination was completed by Dr. Paglini, there was good cause for a second Rule 35 Examination. Based upon this finding, Discovery Commissioner Young recommended that Plaintiff submit to a Rule 35 Examination, not to exceed two hours, by Dr. Gregory Brown, M.D. Id.

On September 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Objection to the Discovery Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff argued that the Court should vacate the Discovery Commissioner’s Report and Recommendations because: (1) Plaintiff has not alleged that she sustained any psychiatric conditions as a result Defendant’s sexual assault; (2) Plaintiff has not sought any treatment with a psychiatrist as a result of Defendant’s sexual assault; (3) Defendant cannot establish good cause warranting a second IPE of Plaintiff since her psychiatric condition is not in controversy; and (4) Defendant has failed to set forth the specific time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of his requested IPE.

 

August 2022 Hearings

August 15, 2022*

Kennedy v. Martinez, et. al.

A-20-820254-C

Case Summary: This case arises from a horrific motor vehicle collision that occurred on the freeway on November 5, 2018.  As Plaintiff slowed or stopped for traffic,  a truck driven by Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff's Vehicle. At the time of the crash, Defendant worked as a rover security guard for Universal Protection Services, and was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash. Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury and now needs 24/7 attendant care due to balance and other issues caused by the TBI.

Motion: 

(1) Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 37

Defendant Martinez admitted blame for causing the crash that totaled Plaintiffs’ vehicle and caused his vehicle to catch fire and was deposed on September 10, 2021. At his deposition, Martinez testified that for months leading up to the crash, he worked 60 plus hours per week as a rover security guard for Defendant Universal Protection Services. Thereafter, Plaintiffs propounded an interrogatory to UPS asking if it disputes Martinez’s testimony that he worked more than 60 hours per week for months leading up to the crash.  In a response served on November 11, 2021, UPS represented that it is attempting to locate timekeeping records that might be relevant to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. On March 11, 2022, Defendants produced for the first time a timekeeping report.  However, the timekeeping report only dated back one week prior to the crash.  Consistent with Martinez’s testimony, the timekeeping report showed that he worked more than 60 hours during the week of the crash. One week later, on March 18, 2022, Plaintiffs formally requested UPS to produce Martinez’s timekeeping report dating back to March 1, 2018. In a response served on April 18, 2022, UPS objected to producing any additional timecards claiming that the request is “overbroad in time and scope.” After numerous depositions, and just weeks before the close of discovery, Defendants produced Martinez’s complete timekeeping report on June 2, 2022. Without the benefit of the complete timekeeping report, and any indication that UPS disputes Martinez’s testimony that he worked 60-plus hours per week for months leading up to the crash, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed numerous witnesses, including UPS’s NRCP 30(b)(6) witness. This outrageous misconduct by UPS and its counsel has prevented, Plaintiffs from conducting meaningful discovery to prove Martinez’s claim that UPS overworked him for months leading up to the crash.

Plaintiffs ask this Court to set an evidentiary hearing, and depending on what is learned at that hearing, Plaintiffs will likely ask for case dispositive sanctions.  If this Court is not inclined to set an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs request that this Court sanction UPS and its counsel for their misconduct by permitting Plaintiffs to present a jury instruction regarding the undisputed fact to the jury during opening statements.

August 24, 2022*

Maroney, et. al. v. Las Vegas Dragon Hotel, LLC, et. al.

A-21-845156-C (Consolidated with A-20-808100-C)

Case Summary: This matter arises out of a fire that occurred on December 21, 2019, at the Alpine Motel Apartments, located at 213 North 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101. Plaintiffs in this consolidated action were tenants at the Alpine Motel and sustained injuries as a result of the fire.

Motion: 

(1) Hearing on Plaintiffs Barbara Maroney and Christine Stelluti’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Deborah Cihal Crawford’s Complaint

Tracy Ann Cihal (“Decedent”) was a tenant at the Alpine Motel Apartments and died from her injuries. Tracy Ann Cihal died intestate. Thus, her heirs, pursuant to NRS 134.070, are her aunts, Plaintiffs Barbara Maroney and Christine Stelluti. On January 8, 2020, Deborah Cihal Crawford (“Crawford”), the Decedent’s purported sister-in-law, filed a Complaint, Case No. A-20-808100-C (the “Lead Case”), alleging that she was the “Special Administrator of the Estate of Tracy Ann Cihal” and alleging that she was the “heir to the Estate of Tracy Ann Cihal.” However, the Decedent’s heirs, Plaintiffs Christine Stelluti and Barbara Maroney, have priority to serve as Special Administrators of the Decedent’s Estate, and to make a nomination in their place pursuant to NRS 139.040 and 139.050. Accordingly, Christine Stelluti nominated Barbara Maroney and Lotus S. Herrera to act as Co-Special Administrators of the Decedent’s Estate to prosecute the Decedent’s claims against the Defendants. On October 13, 2020, Barbara Maroney and Lotus S. Herrera (collectively referred to as the “Special Administrators”) filed a Petition for Appointment of Co-Special Administrators and For Issuance of Special Letters of Administration. On February 12, 2021, the Court granted the Special Administrators’ Petition for Appointment of Co-Special Administrators and For Issuance of Special Letters of Administration. On March 11, 2021, the Letters of Special Administration were issued. Because the Special Administrators were granted the authority to commence and maintain an action on behalf of the Decedent’s Estate, on March 30, 2022, Plaintiffs Motion to Substitute the Special Administrators for the Decedent in the subject action was granted.

Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(5) and 17(a) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, Crawford’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because an action can only be brought by a party who possesses the right to enforce the claim. Crawford lacks standing to bring suit on behalf of the Decedent’s estate, and lacks standing to assert a claim on her own behalf. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that Crawford’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs also respectfully request an award of attorney’s fees and costs for having to bring the instant Motion as Crawford’s Complaint was clearly brought, and maintained, without any legal or factual basis.

TBD*

Morales v. Lopez

A-19-794261-C

Case Summary: This case arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 19, 2017, at approximately 4:09 p.m. Plaintiff Alma Morales was driving northbound on 16th Street in Las Vegas, Nevada in a 2001 Dodge Caravan. Defendant Gustavo G. Lopez was driving in front of Plaintiff northbound on 16th Street in a 2000 Dodge Durango. Defendant Lopez made a right turn and began traveling eastbound on Linden Street. Defendant Lopez then made a U-turn and proceeded westbound towards the stop sign on Linden Street. While intending to make a left turn onto 16th Street, Defendant Lopez failed to yield the right of way at the stop sign on Linden Street and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle as she proceeded through the intersection northbound on 16th Street.

Motions: 

(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Duty and Breach of NRS 484B.257

On March 9, 2022, the Court heard oral argument and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion on the basis that genuine issues of material fact exist as to Defendant’s duty and breach of NRS 484B.257 and to the location of Alma’s vehicle at the time of the collision. However, regardless of Alma’s alleged speed, Defendant was at a clearly marked stop sign and thus had a legal duty to yield Alma’s right-of-way. Importantly, Defendant does not dispute that Alma had the right-of-way and that he had a duty to yield the right-of-way to her. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact exists as to Defendant’s duty under NRS 484B.257. Given that the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion as to duty, the Court’s denial was clearly erroneous. As a result of the Court’s clear error, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to reconsider Plaintiffs’ Motion.

(2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Lack of Comparative Fault

On March 9, 2022, the Court heard oral argument and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion on the basis that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding Alma’s speed. Plaintiff requests the Court to reconsider its order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion because Defendant admitted under oath that he did not see Alma’s vehicle before or during the collision, and as such, he cannot testify as to her alleged speed. Furthermore, the uncontroverted evidence in this case establishes that Alma was traveling at the speed limit at the time of the collision. Thus, there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding Alma’s speed.

(3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Motion in Limine No. 1: to Exclude Reference or Argument Regarding Plaintiff Alma Morales’s Speed

On March 9, 2022, the Court heard oral argument from both sides and ultimately denied Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 on the basis that speed is likely a “material fact” that may prove Defendant’s affirmative defense of contributory negligence. However, in rendering its decision, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1 based on an incorrect legal standard and ignored controlling Nevada law. As a result of the Court’s clear errors, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to reconsider Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1.

July 2022 Hearings

July 1, 2022*

Kennedy v. Martinez, et. al.

A-20-820254-C

Case Summary: This case arises from a horrific motor vehicle collision that occurred on the freeway on November 5, 2018.  As Plaintiff slowed or stopped for traffic, he was rear-ended by a truck driven by Defendant. At the time of the crash, Defendant worked as a rover security guard for UPS.  Defendant was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash. This crash caused Plaintiff to sustain a traumatic brain injury and the need for 24/7 attendant care due to balance and other issues caused by the traumatic brain injury.

Motion: 

(1) Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the continuation of a NRCP 30(b)(6) deposition on one topic – other similar incidents. Defendants limited this topic to just crashes that occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. However, and since Defendant UPS’s policies and procedures come from its corporate office in Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs are entitled to other similar incidents from across the country. That evidence will show that despite crashes being caused by overworked and tired security officers, Defendant UPS did nothing to prevent this crash, which was caused by an overworked and tired security officer.

July 7, 2022*

Ferree v. Yocom, et. al.

A-18-774286-C

Case Summary: This matter arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on April 19, 2018, when Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle southbound on Las Vegas Boulevard toward the intersection of Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the same time, Defendant was operating a 2017 Ford Econoline Coach shuttle bus northbound on Las Vegas Boulevard in the course and scope of her employment with Defendant Howard Stark, LLC d/b/a Sin City Tours. As Plaintiff was approaching the intersection, Defendant initiated a left turn into the same intersection toward westbound Clark Avenue and directly into the path of Plaintiff’s oncoming motorcycle.  Defendant’s left turn into the intersection caused a major collision and near-fatal injuries to Plaintiff.

Motion: 

(1) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Pre-Instruct the Jury

Before the commencement of opening statements, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court pre-instruct the jury on the specific jury instructions embodying basic negligence, law of evidence, burden of proof in civil cases, the right-of-way statute, duties of left-turning drivers, and other key instructions in clear and plain English so the jurors can understand that their job is assessing the merits of the case as the evidence is being presented to them. Many, if not all the jurors, will be entirely unfamiliar with the jury trial process and, therefore, it would be extremely helpful to pre-instruct them on certain matters.

July 12, 2022*

Schrader v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, et. al.

2:19-cv-02159-JCM-BNW

Case Summary: This is a putative class action that arises from Plaintiff's employment with Defendant WLV as a Massage Therapist. Plaintiff was forced to engage in sexual conduct with Defendant, the former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Defendant Wynn Resorts, from approximately 2012 until June 2015. Plaintiff was also forced to engage in sexual conduct with a VIP guest from approximately 2016 until 2018. Plaintiff was further subjected to co-worker harassment in 2019 and 2020.

Motion: 

(1) Hearing on Joint Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order

The parties have different positions regarding whether bifurcation of discovery is necessary. Given the nature of the causes of action before the Court, Plaintiff believes that the bifurcation of discovery is neither appropriate nor necessary. Based on the individual claims, complex putative class assertions in this case, and broad scope of Plaintiff’s proposed classes and sub-classes, the Defendants are requesting to conduct discovery in three phases: Phase 1 – Plaintiff-related merits discovery; Phase 2 – Putative Class Member-certification related discovery; and Phase 3 – Class Member Merits-related discovery. As such, the Court has set a hearing to resolve the parties’ divergent views and proposals.

July 25, 2022*

Kennedy v. Martinez, et. al.

A-20-820254-C

Case Summary: This case arises from a horrific motor vehicle collision that occurred on the freeway on November 5, 2018.  As Plaintiff slowed or stopped for traffic, he was rear-ended by a truck driven by Defendant. At the time of the crash, Defendant worked as a rover security guard for UPS. Defendant was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the crash. This crash caused Plaintiff to sustain a traumatic brain injury and the need for 24/7 attendant care due to balance and other issues caused by the traumatic brain injury.

Motion: 

(1) Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to NRCP 37

Defendant admitted blame for causing the crash that totaled Plaintiffs’ vehicle and caused his vehicle to catch fire and was deposed on September 10, 2021. At his deposition, Defendant testified that for months leading up to the crash, he worked 60 plus hours per week as a rover security guard for Defendant UPS. Thereafter, Plaintiffs propounded an interrogatory to UPS asking if it disputes Defendant’s testimony that he worked more than 60 hours per week for months leading up to the crash.  In a response served on November 11, 2021, UPS represented that it is attempting to locate timekeeping records that might be relevant to Plaintiffs’ interrogatory. On March 11, 2022, Defendants produced for the first time a timekeeping report.  However, the timekeeping report only dated back one week prior to the crash.  Consistent with Defendant’s testimony, the timekeeping report showed that he worked more than 60 hours during the week of the crash. One week later, on March 18, 2022, Plaintiffs formally requested UPS to produce Defendant’s timekeeping report dating back to March 1, 2018. In a response served on April 18, 2022, UPS objected to producing any additional timecards claiming that the request is “overbroad in time and scope.” After numerous depositions, and just weeks before the close of discovery, Defendants produced a complete timekeeping report on June 2, 2022. Without the benefit of the complete timekeeping report, and any indication that UPS disputes Defendant’s testimony that he worked 60 plus hours per week for months leading up to the crash, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed numerous witnesses, including UPS’s NRCP 30(b)(6) witness. Because of this outrageous misconduct by UPS and its counsel, Plaintiffs have been prevented from conducting meaningful discovery to prove Defendant’s claim that UPS overworked him for months leading up to the crash.

 

Plaintiffs asks this Court to set an evidentiary hearing, and depending on what is learned at that hearing, Plaintiffs will likely ask for case dispositive sanctions.  If this Court is not inclined to set an evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs request that this Court sanction UPS and its counsel for their misconduct by permitting Plaintiffs to present a jury instruction regarding the undisputed fact to the jury during opening statements.

May 2022 Hearings

May 24, 2022*

Ferree v. Yocom, et. al.

A-18-774286-C

Case Summary: This matter arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on April 19, 2018, when Plaintiff was riding his motorcycle southbound on Las Vegas Boulevard toward the intersection of Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada. At the same time, Defendant was operating a 2017 Ford Econoline Coach shuttle bus northbound on Las Vegas Boulevard in the course and scope of her employment with Defendant Howard Stark, LLC d/b/a Sin City Tours. As Plaintiff was approaching the intersection, Defendant initiated a left turn into the same intersection toward westbound Clark Avenue and directly into the path of Plaintiff’s oncoming motorcycle. Defendant’s left turn into the intersection caused a major collision and near-fatal injuries to Plaintiff.

Motions: 

(1) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 13 to Prohibit Reference to Plaintiff’s Motorcycle as a “Crotch Rocket,” “Ninja Bike,” “GXSR,” “GIXXER,” “Race Bike” and Other Similar Type Names

Plaintigg respectfully requests that this Court prohibit reference to Plaintiffs’s motorcycle with overtly prejudicial terms such as: “crotch rocket,” “ninja bike,” “GXSR,” “Gixxer,” “race bike,” and other similar type names.  Plaintiff also respectfully requests that the Court exclude any testimony that these types of motorcycles are fast and are designed for racing.  Aside from the obvious undue prejudicial impact these derogatory terms will have in this case, they also carry improper implications to the jury, such as Plaintiff was speeding at the time of the collision. Defendants have no evidence to support that careless inference, thus these terms must be prohibited from use at trial.

(2) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 14 to Exclude Any Reference to Collateral Sources of Payment of Medical Bills and All Other Expenses, Including Health Insurance, Liens, and Employment/Disability Benefits

Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court precluding Defendants from seeking admission of collateral source evidence of medical providers treating on a lien basis, the fact that those providers may have sold the rights to those liens to a third party, or any discount given in connection to any such sale. Plaintiff anticipates that Defendants will seek to admit collateral source evidence to establish that the write-down or discounted amount is the reasonable value of the medical services provided.

(3) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Driver’s Handbook

Courts may take judicial notice of “facts in issue or facts from which they may be inferred.” NRS 47.130. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to take judicial notice of the Nevada Driver’s Handbook so the parties may readily refer to the same during trial. Because the Nevada Driver’s Handbook sets the standard for drivers in the Nevada, the Court should take judicial notice of the same.

(4) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice of the Life Expectancy Table

Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to take judicial notice of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Life Expectancy Table so the parties may readily refer to the data therein at the time of trial. The data set forth in the U.S. Census Bureau tables are generally known in the country and capable of accurate and ready determination by simple reference to reliable federal governmental sources. Such data will in turn provide the jury with a frame of reference when calculating Plaintiff’s damages award for future medical expenses and future pain and suffering.

(5) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice of NRS 484B.253

The Court may take judicial notice of matters of law found within the Nevada Revised Statutes. NRS 47.140(2). Pursuant to NRS 47.150, the Court must take judicial notice when requested by a party and supplied with the necessary information. Plaintiff specifically requests that this Court take judicial notice of NRS 484B.253, which prescribes the rights and duties of vehicles making left turns in intersections.

(6) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Admit Plaintiff is a Novice Motorcyclist and Not An Expert

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court admit that Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, a novice motorcyclist and not an expert. Plaintiff’s lack of experience operating motorcycles demonstrates that he was not an expert motorcyclist prior to or at the time of the subject collision.  Thus, any argument that Plaintiff was anything other than a novice motorcyclist must be excluded.

(7) Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice of the Nevada Commercial Driver’s License Manual

Courts may take judicial notice of “facts in issue or facts from which they may be inferred.” NRS 47.130. Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the Nevada Commercial Driver’s License Manual (Nevada CDL Manual). The Nevada CDL Manual is published by the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and the data set forth by the same is generally known in Nevada. The Nevada CDL Manual is universally used in Nevada as a standard for commercial drivers and both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s experts cite to the Nevada CDL Manual in their corresponding expert reports. As such, this Court should take judicial notice of the same.

*Check court docket as hearing dates may be moved.

to top button