THOMAS LABS, LLC v. DUKES
140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 51
Nev.2024Background
- Thomas Labs, LLC filed a lawsuit against Amber Dukes and her veterinary supply company to recover monies owed.
- During litigation, Dukes and her boyfriend set up a revocable living trust; both served as co-trustees.
- Dukes died during litigation; her counsel filed a notice of death but failed to serve it on any nonparty successors or representatives, serving only the parties electronically.
- No timely action was taken by Dukes's counsel to substitute a proper party as required by Nevada statutes and rules.
- Thomas Labs sought to substitute the Trust and Hilliard (trustee), uncontested at first, but later both sides disputed who was the proper successor; probate proceedings eventually appointed a special administrator.
- The district court dismissed claims against Dukes, ruling the 180-day NRCP 25(a) deadline had lapsed; Thomas Labs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What triggers the 180-day substitution deadline under NRCP 25(a)? | Not triggered—notice was not served on nonparty successors. | Triggered by service on parties, even if not on successors. | Not triggered—service on nonparty successors required. |
| Must decedent’s counsel serve nonparty successors or representatives? | Yes, to trigger 180-day deadline and ensure proper substitution. | No, only need to serve parties when no known representative exists. | Yes, service on nonparty successors/representatives is needed. |
| Is counsel obligated to timely take steps to substitute a party under NRS 7.075? | Yes, counsel must act within 90 days to substitute a proper party. | No, motion by other parties can relieve counsel's obligation. | Yes, counsel has statutory duty independent of other actions. |
| Was dismissal for untimely substitution proper? | No, deadline never began—case should continue. | Yes, deadline ran because notice served on parties. | No, dismissal improper; case remanded for substitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonor v. Dale, 134 Nev. 898, 432 P.3d 723 (Nev. 2018) (service of notice of death must include parties and nonparty successors or representatives to trigger substitution deadline under NRCP 25(a))
- Mosely v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 124 Nev. 654, 188 P.3d 1136 (Nev. 2008) (explains service requirements for notice of death under NRCP 25(a))
- McNamee v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 135 Nev. 392, 450 P.3d 906 (Nev. 2019) (holds notice of death need not name the representative, but does not override service requirements on nonparties)