Moon v. McDonald, Carano & Wilson, LLP
126 Nev. 510
| Nev. | 2010Background
- Moon and Patterson Laboratories filed a district court complaint on November 3, 2006 against McDonald, Carano & Wilson, Magrath, and Laxague.
- Respondents answered the complaint on January 10, 2007.
- On March 29, 2007, the arbitration commissioner exempted the case from the court-annexed arbitration program based on probable jury award value.
- On November 6, 2007, respondents moved to dismiss for failing to timely file a case conference report under NRCP 16.1(e)(2).
- Moon and Patterson filed a case conference report on November 21, 2007, and opposed the dismissal; the district court granted the motion to dismiss on January 14, 2008.
- The issue is whether NRCP 16.1 deadlines apply during the pre-exemption period for cases not automatically excluded but later exempted from arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is a case actually in the arbitration program for NRCP 16.1 purposes? | Case is in the program from filing until exemption is granted. | Case becomes in the program only when assigned or ordered into it. | A case is not actually in the program until assigned to an arbitrator or ordered/remanded into it; pre-exemption cases are not in the program. |
| Do NRCP 16.1 deadlines apply during pre-exemption before exemption is granted? | Deadlines are suspended while awaiting exemption. | Deadlines run regardless of exemption status until the case is in the program. | NRCP 16.1 deadlines apply during the pre-exemption period; exemptions do not suspend those deadlines before the case is in the program. |
| Does Morgan v. Las Vegas Sands control the timing of NRCP 16.1(e)(2) in this pre-exemption context? | Morgan supports treating the case as in the program until exemption. | Morgan is distinguishable and not controlling for this pre-exemption timing. | Morgan does not control; the court adopts the pre-exemption timing framework outlined in the Nevada Arbitration Rules. |
| Was dismissal for failure to file a timely case conference report appropriate here? | Appellants complied within the proper NRCP 16.1(e)(2) timeline. | Report was untimely under the 240-day requirement since respondents appeared January 10, 2007. | Yes, dismissal was appropriate because the report was filed more than 240 days after first appearance; the district court's ruling was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410 (2007) (standard of review for NRCP 16.1(e)(2) dismissals)
- Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 122 Nev. 409 (2006) (statutory construction to avoid surplusage)
- Marquis & Aurbach v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 1147 (2006) (statutory/court-rule construction principles)
- Morgan v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 118 Nev. 315 (2002) (NRCP 41(e) tolling and arbitration context; distinguishing arbitration procedures)
- Sengel v. IGT, 116 Nev. 565 (2000) (timing of NRCP 16.1 deadlines in dismissal context)
- Hotel Last Frontier v. Frontier Prop., 79 Nev. 150 (1963) (general principles of statutory interpretation)