LABARBERA VS. WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC
422 P.3d 138, 2018 NV 51 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Nevada courts 'shall' permit parties to testify via simultaneous audiovisual transmission for good cause shown at appropriate proceedings, and a contract is voidable if, due to intoxication, the other party had reason to know the intoxicated person was unable to understand the transaction or act reasonably, provided the defense is proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Facts:
- Mario LaBarbera, an Italian citizen and business owner, claims to suffer from gambling addiction, certified in Italy, and does not speak English.
- In late March through early April of 2008, LaBarbera visited Las Vegas after being recruited by Alex Pariente, an Italian-speaking VIP host of Wynn Las Vegas.
- While staying at Wynn, LaBarbera gambled and lost $1,000,000 of his own money.
- Wynn then extended $1,070,000 worth of gaming credit in the form of casino markers to LaBarbera.
- LaBarbera left $1,000,000 of the extended credit unpaid.
- LaBarbera claims he was intoxicated at the time he signed the casino markers and that the signatures on the markers are not his.
Procedural Posture:
- Wynn Las Vegas, LLC filed a complaint with the Clark County District Attorney's Office for passing bad checks in violation of NRS 205.130 against Mario LaBarbera, which resulted in a bench warrant for LaBarbera's arrest.
- Wynn Las Vegas, LLC also filed a breach of contract suit against Mario LaBarbera in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County (trial court/court of first instance).
- Before the jury trial, Wynn filed three motions in limine seeking to exclude evidence or argument of LaBarbera's gambling addiction, intoxication, and any alleged forgery.
- The district court granted Wynn's first two motions, prohibiting LaBarbera from arguing about his gambling addiction or intoxication at trial, but denied the third motion regarding forgery.
- LaBarbera, facing arrest if he came to Clark County, moved the district court for permission to testify at trial from Italy via video conference with an interpreter.
- The district court denied LaBarbera's motion to testify by video conference.
- The trial proceeded without LaBarbera's presence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wynn in the principal amount of $1,000,000.
- The district court entered a final judgment awarding Wynn contract interest, attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest, totaling $2,626,075.81.
- LaBarbera, as appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the district court abuse its discretion by precluding Mario LaBarbera from testifying at trial via video conference from Italy and by applying an incorrect legal standard to exclude any evidence of his intoxication as a defense to the breach of contract claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Hardesty
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by denying LaBarbera's request to testify via video conference and by excluding evidence of his intoxication. Regarding video testimony, the Nevada Supreme Court Rules Part IX-B(B), Rule 2, states that courts 'shall' permit parties to appear by simultaneous audiovisual transmission at appropriate proceedings, including trials, when good cause is shown. LaBarbera demonstrated good cause by showing convenience, cost and time savings, and that he would otherwise be unable to testify due to an outstanding arrest warrant. Wynn failed to establish undue surprise or prejudice, especially given that LaBarbera's deposition was taken in Italy and used at trial. The district court's summary denial without explanation, relying on an outdated legal standard, was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced LaBarbera by conveying a lack of interest and preventing him from responding to testimony. Regarding the intoxication evidence, this court formally adopted Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 16, which provides that a contract is voidable if the other party has reason to know that, due to intoxication, the person was unable to understand the transaction or act reasonably. The court also adopted the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for proving this defense. The district court erred by relying on FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, a tort case with different legal principles, and by incorrectly stating that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a contract claim. While proving intoxication is a high burden, this does not justify precluding any evidence of it.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and strengthens the requirements for allowing remote testimony in Nevada courts, emphasizing the mandatory nature of accommodating such requests when good cause is established under SCR Part IX-B(B). Furthermore, it provides a definitive framework for the voluntary intoxication defense in contract disputes by formally adopting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 16 and establishing a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard of proof. The decision underscores the importance of trial courts applying the correct legal standards to evidentiary rulings, particularly when it impacts a party's ability to present a defense, thereby ensuring a fair trial. It will likely facilitate access to justice for parties unable to appear in person and offer a more consistent standard for adjudicating intoxication defenses in contract actions.
