Coffee v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 2:20-cv-01352

In August 2015 James and Pamela Coffee purchased a timeshare in Las Vegas after a Wyndham sales presentation. They allege sales reps misrepresented that the timeshare would appreciate, could be rented for profit, could be easily resold, and that Wyndham would buy it back if needed.
The Coffees allege maintenance fees later increased, Wyndham refused a buy-back, rentals and resale proved unprofitable, and they only discovered the falsity of the representations after consulting counsel in 2019.
Claims: violation of NRS § 119A.710 (timeshare unfair/deceptive acts), NRS § 207.171 (false advertising for real property), NRS § 598.0915 (deceptive trade practices), common-law fraud, and enhanced damages under NRS § 41.1395 (elder/vulnerable person exploitation).
Defendants (Wyndham and Worldmark) moved to dismiss as time-barred, argued no private right under § 207.171 and § 41.1395, and challenged adequacy of fraud pleading under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
The court denied dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds (discovery rule); dismissed the Coffees’ standalone § 207.171 claim (but allowed enforcement via Chapter 119A); held § 41.1395 does not create an independent cause of action (it supplies enhanced damages) but preserved special-damages allegations; and dismissed for failure to plead fraud particulars as to each defendant (lumping issue) with leave to amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations/accrual	Coffees: claims were discovered in 2019 when they consulted counsel	Defendants: facts show injuries were known in 2015 so claims are time-barred	Denied dismissal — discovery rule applies and timeliness is not apparent on the face of complaint
Private right under NRS § 207.171	Coffees: § 207.171 claims can proceed and can be enforced via Chapter 119A	Defendants: § 207.174 reserves enforcement to AG or district attorneys — no private cause of action	Court: No independent private cause under § 207.171; Coffees may plead § 207.171 violations as part of a Chapter 119A claim
NRS § 41.1395 (elder/vulnerable exploitation)	Coffees: § 41.1395 creates an actionable claim	Defendants: § 41.1395 provides enhanced damages, not an independent cause of action	Court: § 41.1395 is a special-damages/enhanced-damages provision, not an independent claim; special damages must be pleaded properly
Rule 9(b) pleading particularity & lumping defendants	Coffees: alleged who, when, where, what, and why; some details are within defendants’ control	Defendants: complaint lumps Wyndham and Worldmark together and lacks particulars (agent IDs, dates, fee increases, buy-back attempts)	Court: Complaint fails to differentiate defendants and thus fails Rule 9(b); fraud facts otherwise adequate; granted leave to amend to allocate allegations between defendants

United States ex rel. Air Control Techs., Inc. v. Pre Con Indus., Inc., 720 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir.) (statute-of-limitations dismissal only when untimeliness is apparent on complaint face)
Clark v. Robison, 944 P.2d 788 (Nev.) (cause of action accrues when wrong occurs and injury is sustained)
Petersen v. Bruen, 792 P.2d 18 (Nev.) (accrual standard)
State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of Nev., 83 P.3d 815 (Nev.) (accrual/when suit may be maintained)
G & H Assocs. v. Ernest W. Hahn, Inc., 934 P.2d 229 (Nev.) (Nevada discovery rule for accrual)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible and not merely conclusory)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.) (Rule 8 fair notice requirement)
Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) requires particularity for fraud)
Ebeid ex rel. United States v. Lungwitz, 616 F.3d 993 (9th Cir.) (must plead who, what, when, where, and how of fraud)
United States v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 848 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff must differentiate allegations when suing multiple defendants)
Sonoma Cnty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.) (dismissal without leave to amend is improper unless amendment would be futile)