Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. of State of Nevada, In and For County of Clark, Nos. 12808

Docket Nº13012 and 13048
Citation629 P.2d 1209, 97 Nev. 332
Case DateJune 26, 1981
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

Page 1209

629 P.2d 1209
97 Nev. 332
Chester C. DAVIS, Davis & Cox, a partnership, Maxwell E.
Cox, Howard M. Jaffe and D. Martin Cook, Petitioners,
v.
The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF the STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND
FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK, and the Honorable J.
Charles Thompson, Respondents.
Frank William GAY, Levar Beebe Myler and John M. Holmes,
Jr., Petitioners,
v.
The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK, and the Honorable
J. Charles Thompson, Respondents.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEVADA, Nevada Co-Special
Administrator of the Estate of Howard Robard Hughes, Jr.
(Deceased); William R. Lummis, Nevada Co-Special
Administrator of the Estate of Howard Robard Hughes, Jr.
(Deceased) and Texas Temporary Co-Administrator of the
Estate of Howard Robard Hughes, Jr. (Deceased); Summa
Corporation: Hughes Air Corp., d/b/a Hughes Airwest, and
Hughes Properties, Inc., Petitioners,
v.
The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; the Honorable J. Charles
Thompson, District Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court;
Howard Lorenzo Eckersley; James H. Rickard; and Wilbur
Sutton Thain, M.D., Respondents.
Nos. 12808, 13012 and 13048.
Supreme Court of Nevada.
June 26, 1981.

[97 Nev. 333]

Page 1210

Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard, R. Gaylord Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., Houston, Moran & Kennedy, John T. Moran, Jr., Las Vegas, for petitioners in 12808.

Jolley, Urga & Wirth, Roger A. Wirth, Las Vegas, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Terence M. Murphy, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners in 13012 and respondents in 13048.

Echeverria & Osborne, Peter Echeverria, Reno, Kindel & Anderson, Malcolm George Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., Parson, Behle &

Page 1211

Latimer, Gordon L. Roberts, Salt Lake City, Utah, Fitzgibbons & Beatty, Thomas D. Beatty, Las Vegas, for petitioners in 13048, and respondents in 12808, 13012.

[97 Nev. 334] OPINION

MOWBRAY, Justice:

These original proceedings are a consolidation of three cases: in 12808 and 13012, the lower court refused to quash service of process upon petitioners; in 13048, the lower court granted defendant-respondents' motion to quash service of process.

THE FACTS

On January 24, 1979, a complaint was filed by the Nevada Co-Administrators for the Estate of Howard R. Hughes, Summa Corporation, Hughes Air Corporation, and Hughes Properties (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Summa") against the group of aides, physicians, attorneys, and business executives who had attended the late Hughes during the last years of his life. The complaint alleged essentially that the group conspired to seize control of the Hughes' empire for their own financial gain by taking advantage of the trust and confidence Hughes had placed in them.

All petitioners in 12808 and 13012, except Maxwell Cox, Howard Jaffe, and Martin Cook, and the respondents in 13048 were named as defendants in the original complaint. These out-of-state defendants filed motions to quash service of summons contending that Nevada lacked jurisdiction; the Honorable Paul S. Goldman, District Judge, granted the motions as to petitioners Gay, Myler, Holmes, Davis, Davis and Cox, a partnership, and respondents Eckersley, Rickard, and Thain.

Thereafter, Summa filed a first amended complaint. The defendants again filed motions to quash service of summons, but before the lower court considered these motions, Summa sought leave to file a second amended complaint naming, as additional defendants, petitioners Cox, Jaffe, and Cook. Leave was granted; the second amended complaint was filed on November 28, 1979.

[97 Nev. 335] The out-of-state defendants again filed motions to quash service of process. The Honorable J. Charles Thompson, District Judge, to whom the case was then assigned, denied the motions on June 20, 1980, as to petitioners Cox, Davis, Cook, Jaffe, and Davis and Cox, a partnership, number 12808; he also denied the motions as to Gay, Myler and Holmes on November 13, 1980, number 13012; however, on November 14, 1980, the judge granted the motions and quashed service as to respondents Eckersley, Rickard, and Thain, number 13048. From these orders the parties petition this court.

NUMBER 12808

General Appearance

In response to Summa's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, petitioners filed points and authorities in opposition. They appeared and argued before the court. The lower court ruled that petitioners had waived their special appearance, and had submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the Nevada court.

This court has considered the issue of general and special appearances a number of times, but never in the context of opposing a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. We have held that when a defendant seeks relief additional to that necessary to protect him from service of process, he enters a general appearance. Alitalia-Linee Aeree v. District Court, 92 Nev. 638, 556 P.2d 544 (1976); Deros v. Stern, 87 Nev. 148, 483 P.2d 648 (1971); Havas v. Long, 85 Nev. 260, 454 P.2d 30 (1969); Selznick v. Eighth Judicial District Court, Etc., 76 Nev. 386, 355 P.2d 854 (1960). Petitioners argue that their opposition for leave to amend the complaint was predicated solely upon their assertion that the Nevada court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants; they cite Chitwood v. County of Los Angeles, 14 Cal.App.3d 522, 92 Cal.Rptr. 441 (1971). See also, Housley v. Anaconda Company, 19 Utah 124, 427 P.2d 390 (1967).

Our review of the record leads us to conclude otherwise. In resisting the motion petitioners argued that leave to amend

Page 1212

should not have been granted because of the prejudicial effect it would have on a related action petitioners had filed in New York against Summa. They also contended that the allegations in the proposed second amended complaint were identical to those in the then filed first amended complaint. 1 During argument before the district court, petitioners' counsel sought [97 Nev....

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Stein, No. S1 05 Crim. 0888(LAK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 26, 2006
    ...defects in service, process, or personal jurisdiction) (California law) (quotation marks omitted); Davis v. Eighth Jud. Dist. of Nevada, 97 Nev. 332, 334-36, 629 P.2d 1209, 1211-12 (1981) (opposition to motion for leave to amend waived special appearance and" subjected party to personal jur......
  • Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. In and For County of Clark, No. 23912
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • July 27, 1993
    ...873, 821 P.2d 1043, 1044 (1991); see Levinson v. District Court, 103 Nev. 404, 406, 742 P.2d 1024, 1025 (1987); Davis v. District Court, 97 Nev. 332, 337, 629 P.2d 1209, 1213 (1981); see also Doe v. National Medical Services, 974 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir.1992); Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc.......
  • Raser Techs., Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 20170325
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • August 13, 2019
    ...Nevada court had previously recognized the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction in a pre-Walden case, Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 97 Nev. 332, 629 P.2d 1209, 1211, 1213 (1981), superseded by rule on other grounds , as recognized in Hansen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. Count......
  • Dobson v. Dobson, No. 21718
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • May 13, 1992
    ...98 Nev. 548, 654 P.2d 1030 (1982); Sun Valley Ford, Inc. v. District Court, 97 Nev. 467, 634 P.2d 464 (1981); Davis v. District Court, 97 Nev. 332, 629 P.2d 1209 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1055, 102 S.Ct. 601, 70 L.Ed.2d 591; Burns v. District Court, 97 Nev. 237, 627 P.2d 403...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • U.S. v. Stein, No. S1 05 Crim. 0888(LAK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • June 26, 2006
    ...defects in service, process, or personal jurisdiction) (California law) (quotation marks omitted); Davis v. Eighth Jud. Dist. of Nevada, 97 Nev. 332, 334-36, 629 P.2d 1209, 1211-12 (1981) (opposition to motion for leave to amend waived special appearance and" subjected party to personal jur......
  • Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. In and For County of Clark, No. 23912
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • July 27, 1993
    ...873, 821 P.2d 1043, 1044 (1991); see Levinson v. District Court, 103 Nev. 404, 406, 742 P.2d 1024, 1025 (1987); Davis v. District Court, 97 Nev. 332, 337, 629 P.2d 1209, 1213 (1981); see also Doe v. National Medical Services, 974 F.2d 143, 145 (10th Cir.1992); Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc.......
  • Raser Techs., Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 20170325
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • August 13, 2019
    ...Nevada court had previously recognized the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction in a pre-Walden case, Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 97 Nev. 332, 629 P.2d 1209, 1211, 1213 (1981), superseded by rule on other grounds , as recognized in Hansen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. Count......
  • Dobson v. Dobson, No. 21718
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • May 13, 1992
    ...98 Nev. 548, 654 P.2d 1030 (1982); Sun Valley Ford, Inc. v. District Court, 97 Nev. 467, 634 P.2d 464 (1981); Davis v. District Court, 97 Nev. 332, 629 P.2d 1209 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1055, 102 S.Ct. 601, 70 L.Ed.2d 591; Burns v. District Court, 97 Nev. 237, 627 P.2d 403...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT