Kirsch v. Redwood Recovery Services, LLC, 111519 NVSC, 73576

Docket Nº:73576
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS C.J.
Party Name:JEFFREY KIRSCH, Appellant, v. REDWOOD RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC; AND ELEVENHOME LIMITED, Respondents.
Judge Panel:Silver, Douglas J. Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Thomas J. Tanksley, Settlement Judge
Case Date:November 15, 2019
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

JEFFREY KIRSCH, Appellant,

v.

REDWOOD RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC; AND ELEVENHOME LIMITED, Respondents.

No. 73576

Supreme Court of Nevada

November 15, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBONS C.J.

This is a pro se appeal from a district court final judgment and order granting an injunction following a bench trial.[1] Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.

We are not persuaded that the district court committed reversible error in entering the challenged orders. First, we agree with the district court's determination that appellant had sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada such that he was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this state. See Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, Inc. v. John Doe 119, 131 Nev. 246, 249-50, 349 P.3d 518, 520 (2015) (explaining Nevada's test for determining minimum contacts, which includes the extent to which the plaintiffs cause of action arises from the defendant's contacts with Nevada). Most notably, the district court found that appellant created a Nevada-registered LLC (Rock Bay, LLC), physically went to a Las Vegas branch of U.S. Bank to set up a bank account for Rock Bay, and then orchestrated the deposit of millions of dollars into that account in order to hide that money from respondents. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's findings, and because respondents' claims arise directly from the aforementioned conduct, 2 we agree that appellant's contacts with Nevada were sufficient to subject him to specific personal jurisdiction in Nevada. Id. at 249, 349 P.3d at 520 ("When reviewing a district court's exercise of jurisdiction, we review legal issues de novo but defer to the district court's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence.").

Nor are we persuaded that the district court abused its discretion in prohibiting appellant from introducing evidence at trial as a discovery sanction. See Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Bldg., Inc., 106 Nev. 88, 92, 787 P.2d 777, 779 (1990) (reviewing the imposition of discovery sanctions for an abuse of discretion).3 In particular, the record...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP