245 P.3d 542
Nev.2010Background
- Schuck parked his twin‑engine Cessna at SFS’s McCarran Airport facility; after a week, he alleged engine and rudder damage and missing a dipstick; he sued SFS for contract, negligence, and punitive damages; the district court granted SFS summary judgment; the district court also entered a personal fee judgment against Schuck in favor of his withdrawing law firm for $70,014.09; Schuck appealed and moved for NRCP 60(b) relief after the judgment; the court ultimately affirmed SFS’s summary judgment, reversed the fee judgment against the Rosenfeld firm, and otherwise denied relief on the NRCP 60(b) appeal; the matter involved potential bailment theories and attorney’s charging liens under NRS 18.015.
- Schuck sought reversal of summary judgment on causation/liability grounds, argued bailment theories should shift burden of proof, and contested the firm’s lien and fee judgment; the district court relied on undisputed facts to deny liability and damages; the appellate court reviewed de novo but declined to consider new theories not raised below; the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, reversed the fee judgment against Rosenfeld Roberson, and left separate procedures for fee collection intact.
- The opinion discusses the proper standard for summary judgment under Wood v. Safeway, the non-waiver of issues not raised below, and the propriety of the attorney charging lien under NRS 18.015, concluding the lien should not be adjudicated by summary judgment before a verdict or recovery was established; the ruling preserves the possibility of pursuing fees in separate proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SFS was entitled to summary judgment on liability | Schuck relied on contested issues of fact and a bailment theory to create questions for trial | SFS showed undisputed facts negating breach and causation under contract and tort theories | Yes, summary judgment affirmed for SFS |
| Whether Schuck could raise a bailment theory for the first time on appeal | Bailment should shift burden to SFS to prove non-liability | Waived; new theory cannot be raised for the first time on appeal | Waived; court did not reverse on bailment grounds |
| Whether the district court properly adjudicated the withdrawing law firm’s lien | Lien attached to any recovery; firm should be paid before final distribution | Lien improperly adjudicated by summary judgment before recovery or verdict | Reversed; lien judgment improper before verdict/recovery; remanded for separate handling of fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724 (2005) (summary judgment standard; no “slightest doubt” rule)
- Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448 (1993) (summary judgment standard evolution)
- Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49 (1981) (waiver of issues not urged in trial court; de novo review with limits)
- Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., Inc., 173 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir.1999) (district court not obligated to scour entire record for facts)
- Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.2001) (district court not required to search entire record for adverse party facts)
- Alamo Airways, Inc. v. Benum, 78 Nev. 384 (1962) (bailment and burden of proof in context of bailment for hire)