The Estate of Jill Ann Esche v. Renown Regional Medical Center, 3:21-cv-00520

Jill Ann Esche died shortly after giving birth, following a prolonged involuntary hospital stay at Renown Regional Medical Center (RRMC).
Plaintiffs (the Estate of Esche, her daughter by guardian ad litem Wayne Wofford, and her son) sued RRMC, individual staff members (the "Renown Defendants"), and Dr. Earle Oki for civil rights violations and negligence.
The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Oki and partial summary judgment for Renown Defendants but left a general negligence claim for trial.
Pending motions included: Renown Defendants' motion for reconsideration on summary judgment denial (negligence claim), Plaintiffs' motion to certify the judgment as final to appeal Dr. Oki's dismissal, and Plaintiffs’ objection to Dr. Oki’s bill of costs.
The Renown Defendants argued that a recent Nevada Supreme Court decision (Limprasert) changed the law on when a claim is general vs. professional negligence.
The Court denied all pending motions, holding there was no timely or significant change in law and that the summary judgment order was not a final, appealable judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Limprasert changed the law regarding general vs. professional negligence, justifying reconsideration of summary judgment denial	Limprasert did not change controlling law or overrule Szymborski; claim is for general negligence, not medical/professional	Limprasert changed the standard and supports summary judgment; claim is really for professional negligence	Limprasert did not change the controlling law or overrule prior precedent; motion for reconsideration denied
Whether summary judgment order as to Dr. Oki should be certified as final for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b)	Order is final as to Oki because all claims against him are resolved	Order is not final: claims remain against other defendants; risk of piecemeal appeals	Order not final; certification for appeal denied
Whether Dr. Oki’s bill of costs should be allowed	Costs are premature; no final judgment has been entered	Bill of costs should be allowed now to preserve rights	Bill of costs rejected as premature but can be refiled after final judgment
Sufficiency of notice of new law changing during briefing	N/A	Plaintiffs failed to give timely notice of new authority to the Court	Court finds defendants should have notified the Court; delay counts against reconsideration

Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hosp. of Las Vegas, 550 P.3d 825 (Nev. 2024) (clarifies distinction between general and professional negligence claims under Nevada law)
Szymborski v. Spring Mountain Treatment Ctr., 403 P.3d 1280 (Nev. 2017) (sets test for distinguishing general from professional negligence in medical cases)
Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2005) (rules for certifying final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b))