Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. of State of Nev.
97 Nev. 332, 629 P.2d 1209, 1981 Nev. LEXIS 524 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-state defendant makes a general appearance, submitting to a court's jurisdiction, by seeking relief beyond what is necessary to challenge service of process. Furthermore, Nevada's long-arm statute extends to the constitutional limits of due process, allowing jurisdiction over a defendant who commits an act outside the state that causes a tortious injury within the state, for which a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of sufficient contacts.
Facts:
- During the last years of Howard R. Hughes's life, a group of aides, physicians, attorneys, and business executives attended to him.
- After Hughes's death, Summa Corporation, representing the Hughes estate, alleged that this group conspired to seize control of the Hughes' empire for their own financial gain.
- The alleged conspiracy involved the group taking advantage of the trust and confidence Hughes had placed in them.
- The defendants were located out-of-state and allegedly conspired outside of Nevada.
- The alleged conspiracy caused financial injury to Summa's property and assets, which were located within Nevada.
Procedural Posture:
- Summa Corporation filed a complaint in a Nevada district court against several of Howard Hughes's former associates.
- The out-of-state defendants filed motions to quash service of summons, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
- The district court judge (Judge Goldman) granted the motions to quash for several defendants.
- Summa filed a first amended complaint, and then was granted leave to file a second amended complaint, which added new defendants.
- The out-of-state defendants again filed motions to quash service of process based on the second amended complaint.
- A new district court judge (Judge Thompson) denied the motions for some defendants but granted the motions for others.
- The parties on both sides of the judge's conflicting rulings petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Nevada court have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants who allegedly committed tortious acts outside of Nevada that caused injury within the state, and can such defendants waive their jurisdictional challenge by their conduct in court?
Opinions:
Majority - Mowbray, J.
Yes, a Nevada court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The defendants made a general appearance by seeking relief beyond a jurisdictional challenge, and Nevada's long-arm statute permits jurisdiction over out-of-state actors who cause tortious injury within the state. First, some defendants waived their special appearance and submitted to the court's jurisdiction by arguing against Summa's motion to amend the complaint on grounds unrelated to jurisdiction, such as the prejudicial effect on a separate New York action, and by requesting attorneys' fees. Second, a prior judge's order quashing service was not a final, appealable judgment under Nevada rules and therefore did not have res judicata effect on the jurisdictional issue. Third, a plaintiff must only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts, not prove them by a preponderance of the evidence, and Summa met this burden with affidavits. Finally, Nevada’s long-arm statute is interpreted broadly to reach the outer limits of constitutional due process, which includes exercising jurisdiction over a person who causes tortious effects within the state by an act done elsewhere.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies several key aspects of civil procedure in Nevada regarding personal jurisdiction. It establishes a strict standard for what constitutes a general appearance, warning defendants that any request for relief beyond challenging jurisdiction, however minor, will be deemed a waiver of that defense. The ruling also confirms Nevada's adoption of the 'effects test' for its long-arm statute, aligning it with a broad interpretation of jurisdiction where out-of-state conduct causing in-state harm is sufficient for a lawsuit. Lastly, by clarifying that an order quashing service is not a final judgment for res judicata purposes, the court preserves a plaintiff's ability to cure jurisdictional defects in an amended complaint without being permanently barred.
