Case Last Refreshed: 6 months ago
Jiles, Trina, filed a(n) Other Civil Matters case represented by Paul M Gaudet, against Gfive Cultivation Llc, Smith, Larry D, represented by Joshua M. Dickey, in the jurisdiction of Clark County, NV, . Clark County, NV Superior Courts with Allf, Nancy presiding.
Case Number |
|
Filing DateSeptember 26, 2016 |
CategoryOther Civil Matters |
Last RefreshedNovember 06, 2023 |
|
Filing LocationClark County, NV |
|
Case Outcome TypeJudgment Plus Interest |
| Date | Type | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| November 18, 2021 | Docket Event |
Notice of Appearance Doc ID# 94 [94] Notice of Appearance |
|
| February 09, 2021 | Docket Event |
Notice of Withdrawal Doc ID# 93 [93] Notice of Withdrawal |
|
| February 08, 2021 | Docket Event |
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment Doc ID# 91 [91] Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment |
|
| February 08, 2021 | Docket Event |
Notice of Entry of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law Doc ID# 92 [92] Notice of Entry of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment |
|
| January 27, 2021 | Docket Event |
Minute Order: Disclosure COURT FINDS after review the Complaint in this case was filed September 26, 2016. COURT FURTHER FINDS after review that on April 11, 2017, an Amended Complaint was filed and made the following claims for: (1) Breach of Agreement; (2) Fraud; (3) Punitive Damages; (4) Quantum Meruit; and (5) Accounting. The parties have ties to the cannabis industry. COURT FURTHER FINDS after review that on January 4, 2021, this case was assigned to the Honorable Monica Trujillo. COURT FURTHER FINDS after review that on January 27, 2021, due to the Honorable Monica Trujillo s recusal, this case was re-assigned to the Honorable Nancy L. Allf in Department 27. This minute order is being entered pursuant to Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct 2.11(A). Judge Allf s husband, David Thomas, owns an interest and is a managing member of an entity operating within the marijuana industry. Judge Allf and her husband keep their business and professional interests separate, and she has no knowledge regarding the potential facts of this case. As such, there is nothing to preclude Judge Allf s impartiality. This disclosure of her husband s business interest is made out of abundance of caution and as a courtesy to the parties. Should any party have an objection to Judge Allf presiding over this case, such objection may be made via email to Department 27 by February 5, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Should any party object, Judge Allf will recuse herself from the case, which will then be randomly reassigned. CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served by Courtroom Clerk, Nicole McDevitt, to all registered parties for Odyssey File & Serve. /nm 1/27/2021 Judge: Allf, Nancy |
|
| January 27, 2021 | Docket Event |
Notice of Department Reassignment Doc ID# 90 [90] Notice of Department Reassignment |
|
| January 27, 2021 | Docket Event | Notice of Department Reassignment | |
| January 26, 2021 | Docket Event |
Minute Order To avoid the appearance of impropriety and implied bias, this Court hereby disqualifies itself and ORDERS, this case be REASSIGNED at random. Judge: Trujillo, Monica |
|
| January 04, 2021 | Docket Event |
Administrative Reassignment - Judicial Officer Change Judicial Reassignment to Judge Monica Trujillo Judge: ChangeJudicial Reassignment to Judge Monica Trujillo |
|
| December 29, 2020 | Docket Event |
Minute Order Upon review of the papers and pleadings on file in this matter, the Court notes that the instant matter was filed on September 26, 2016. On October 26, 2016, defendant served on plaintiff an offer of judgment for $1500 (2016 offer). Plaintiff did not accept that offer. Thereafter, on June 11, 2019, after the completion of all discovery and motion practice, defendant served a new, timely, pre-trial offer of judgment in the amount of $25,000 (2019 offer). Plaintiff did not accept that offer either. The matter proceeded to trial on July 15, 2019. At the conclusion of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff as to the existence of a contract with defendant but in favor of defendant on the issue of damages, awarding plaintiff zero damages. This motion follows. Defendant is requesting $320,569.58 in attorney s fees based on the offer of judgement standards set forth in NRCP 68 and in light of the analysis required under Beattie, 99 Nev. 579 (1983) and Brunzell, 85 Nev. 345 (1969). Defendant opines that the March 1, 2019, amendment to NRCP 68 makes attorney s fees in that amount appropriate since the amendment authorizes attorney s fees from the date of the earliest offer of judgement. Plaintiff argues against the attorney s fees in general but also argues that if they are to be awarded, they should just be from the most recent offer of judgment date as that is what was authorized in the pre-amendment NRCP 68. The court agrees with the plaintiff. NRCP 68, as it existed when the case was filed, made clear that for attorney s fees purposes, unaccepted offers of judgement were wiped out by subsequent unaccepted offers of judgment. That standard clearly played a role in the amounts offered early on by offering parties in litigation. Such parties would know that a subsequent offer with a higher amount would render their earlier, possibly unreasonable, offer meaningless in terms of their later request for attorney s fees. That seems to be obvious in the instant case where the $1500, 2016 offer was made one month into the litigation prior to any meaningful discovery occurring. This court finds that: (1) generally, the rules of procedure governing a litigation should be those in effect when the case was filed as that is the only way parties can prepare and plan the course of their litigation tactics and efforts, (2) it would be manifestly unjust to plaintiff to allow defendant to benefit from the pre-amendment NRCP 68 standards ( that were in effect when this case was filed and when the 2016 offer was made) by making a very early, very low pre-discovery offer knowing it could increase its offer later on and have that subsequent offer control, only to then see NRCP 68 be amended during the ongoing litigation thereby allowing the prior, earlier offer to become controlling and (3) it would be manifestly unjust to prejudice plaintiff by holding them to their failure to accept an offer of judgement made one month into the litigation when the then existing procedural framework allowed that offer to become meaningless if and when subsequent offers were made. Moreover, the Court has evaluated the request pursuant to Beattie, and the Court finds that plaintiff brought its claims in good faith and that the earlier 2016 offer was not reasonable, either in timing or amount. Further, the Court would not characterize defendant s decision to reject that offer as grossly unreasonable. Based on all of the above, defendant s request for attorney s fees from the date of the 2016 offer is DENIED. Regarding attorney s fees being awarded from the 2019 offer date, that request is GRANTED. The Court finds that defendant served a timely offer of judgment on defendant in the reasonable amount of $25,000 and that offer was not accepted. Thereafter, defendant prevailed at trial as plaintiff received zero damages. As stated above, while the Court finds that plaintiff originally brought its claims in good faith, after the completion of discovery, the 2019 offer by defendant was reasonable in both timing and amount. Additionally, plaintiff s decision to reject that offer was grossly unreasonable. The Court notes that it is has received sufficient evidence by way of affidavits and billing records to ascertain and justify the requested attorney s fees. The Court has further evaluated the requested amounts, the documentation provided and, pursuant to Schouweiler, 101 Nev. 827 (1985) and Brunzell, has taken into account the complexity of the case, the quality of the advocacy, the character of the work, the work actually performed and the results. Based on that review, the Court ORDERS the motion for attorney s fees GRANTED in the amounts of $97,078.50 for Attorney Dickey, $78,496.25 for Attorney Stout, $5,801.25 as to Paralegal Thomas and $5,680 as to Paralegal LaCroix, for a total award of $187,056. \ Lastly, the court notes that defendant s motion requested further attorney s fees that were estimated to be billed before the matter is concluded. The court finds that awarding such fees would require inappropriate speculation on behalf of the court and that request is DENIED. CLERK S NOTE: Counsel are to ensure a copy of the forgoing minute order is distributed to all interested parties; additionally, a copy of the foregoing minute order was distributed to the registered service recipients via Odyssey eFileNV E-Service (12/29/2020 ks). Judge: Herndon, Douglas W. |
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
