Harmful Error

The Nevada Supreme Court issued three opinions today, bringing it to a total of 30 published opinions for the year. Only one case touched on criminal law, but it's really a civil matter:

Stockmeier v. Dep't of Corrections - " In this proper person appeal, we consider whether the violation of Nevada's Open Meeting Law can support a private cause of action for damages. We conclude that it cannot.

Appellant Robert Stockmeier is currently serving the first of two consecutive life sentences as a convicted sex offender. To determine his eligibility for parole, Stockmeier was evaluated by a Psychological Review Panel (Psych Panel), so that it could decide whether to certify him as not at high risk to reoffend.

Thereafter, Stockmeier filed suit in the district court, alleging that during its evaluation, the Psych Panel violated Nevada's Open Meeting Law, NRS Chapter 241; he later sought, in that case, damages for these alleged violations. The district court, however, dismissed his complaint, and Stockmeier has appealed.

In this appeal, we conclude that the statute governing Open Meeting Law claims, NRS 241.037, allows for Open Meeting Law violations to be remedied exclusively through declaratory and injunctive relief. As neither NRS 241.037 nor any other statute entitles a party to damages for Open Meeting Law violations, Stockmeier failed to state a viable claim for damages, and thus, we affirm the district court's order dismissing Stockmeier's action."

As for the other two civil cases, it's an arbitration decision day:

Hamm v. Arrowcreek Homeowners' Ass'n - "In this appeal, we consider whether homeowners must submit to mediation or arbitration, pursuant to NRS 38.310, before they initiate a civil action in the district court to release a homeowners' association assessment lien on their property. Under that statute, the district court must dismiss any dispute arising from the interpretation, application, or enforcement of homeowners' associations' covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) if the parties did not first submit the dispute to mediation or arbitration. However, this statutory requirement does not apply to actions for injunctive relief involving 'an immediate threat of irreparable harm, or action[s] relating to the title to residential property.' Thus, here, we must determine whether an action seeking the removal of a homeowners' association lien and an injunction against future liens necessarily involves an immediate threat of irreparable harm or relates to residential title.

On these issues of first impression, we conclude that the filing of a lien, in and of itself, does not create 'an immediate threat of irreparable harm' and that an action to release a lien, without more, does not 'relat[e] to the title to residential property.' Accordingly, as neither of these exceptions was shown in this case, the district court correctly concluded that the homeowners were required to submit their claims to mediation or arbitration before instituting an action in the district court to release a lien.

We also consider whether NRS 38.310 applies to actions against a collection agency that acts as a homeowners' association's agent. We conclude that if the collection agency acts as the agent of a homeowners' association and NRS 38.310 applies to the action against the homeowners' association, then that statute applies equally to the collection agency. Accordingly, here, since the homeowners did not first submit their claims against the homeowners' association and the collection agency to mediation or arbitration as required by NRS 38.310, the district court properly dismissed their complaint."

Whitemaine v. Anikskovich - "This appeal presents an issue of first impression of whether two employment contracts can constitute a single agreement when one of the contracts contains an integration clause. Specifically, this matter concerns appellant Suzette Whitemaine's concurrent employment contracts with respondents Banc of America Investment Services, Inc. (BAIS), and its parent company, Bank of America, N.A. The BAIS employment contract contained a provision requiring Whitemaine to arbitrate any dispute related to her employment. The Bank of America employment contract did not contain an arbitration clause and featured an integration provision.

Whitemaine contends that the district court erred when it concluded that the arbitration clause in the BAIS contract applied to her contract with Bank of America, requiring her to arbitrate her claims against it. In particular, Whitemaine asserts that the integration clause at the end of her Bank of America contract indicated that the contract was a complete agreement and precluded the introduction of any additional terms. Thus, Whitemaine asserts that the arbitration clause in the BAIS agreement, which was executed after the Bank of America contract, could not be a part of her purportedly 'complete' employment contract with Bank of America and, therefore, could not compel her to arbitrate her employment claims against Bank of America. We disagree.

We conclude that the two employment agreements generally form one contract under Collins v. Union Federal Savings and Loan. However, Collins does not squarely dispose of this appeal because it did not address the preclusive effect of an integration clause. We hereby extend the reasoning of Collins and adopt the California Court of Appeal's reasoning in Brookwood v. Bank of America, which held that two separately executed employment agreements formed one contract even though one of the agreements contained an integration clause. Thus, we conclude that the Bank of America and BAIS employment agreements formed a single agreement, featuring an integration clause, an arbitration clause, and all the remaining provisions of those two agreements. Accordingly, we affirm the district court order confirming the arbitration award in favor of respondents Bank of America, BAIS, and Lisa Aniskovich."