Elyousef v. O'REILLY & FERRARIO, LLC
126 Nev. 441
Nev.2010Background
- Elyousef, client of the O'Reilly firm, had a business transaction with Homayouni, who was then employed by O'Reilly.
- Homayouni facilitated Elyousef's transfer of an interest in NOLD, which owns a Las Vegas gas station; O'Reilly opposed the transaction due to a conflict of interest.
- Homayouni sued Elyousef; Elyousef counterclaimed alleging Homayouni caused him to lose his NOLD interest; damages awarded totaled $150,000 plus $225,631.22 in costs and fees.
- Homayouni settled with Elyousef for $50,000 and the return of Elyousef's NOLD interest.
- Elyousef then sued O'Reilly for fiduciary duty, negligence, and related claims; the district court granted summary judgment for O'Reilly based on double recovery and issue preclusion.
- The Nevada Supreme Court adopts and applies the double recovery doctrine to hold Elyousef cannot recover from O'Reilly, and also applies issue preclusion to bar relitigation of the damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the double recovery doctrine bar Elyousef's claims against O'Reilly? | Elyousef argues he has not fully recovered and thus may seek remaining damages from O'Reilly. | O'Reilly contends the damages were fully satisfied by the Homayouni settlement and NOLD value, triggering double recovery bar. | Yes; double recovery bars further recovery from O'Reilly. |
| Does issue preclusion bar relitigation of damages against O'Reilly? | Elyousef argues the prior damages ruling does not bind him for present claims against O'Reilly. | O'Reilly asserts four-factor test is satisfied since the prior ruling was on the merits, parties were in privity, identical issue, and actually litigated. | Yes; issue preclusion bars relitigation of damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phelps v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 112 Nev. 675, 917 P.2d 944 (Nev. 1996) (double recovery concerns in insurance context)
- Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, 125 Nev. _, 212 P.3d 1068 (Nev. 2009) (double recovery across different legal theories)
- Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 194 P.3d 709 (Nev. 2008) (four-factor test for issue preclusion)
- University of Nevada v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 879 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1994) (foundational articulation of issue preclusion factors)