Stephens v. Southern Nevada Music Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6896,6896 |
| Citation | 89 Nev. 104,507 P.2d 138 |
| Parties | Adele STEPHENS, aka Adele Stephens Kadans, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN NEVADA MUSIC CO., INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Paul H. Lamboley, Reno, for appellant.
Beckley, DeLanoy & Jemison and A. Bill Maupin, Las Vegas, for respondent.
Adele Stephens, now known as Adele Stephens Kadans, commenced an action against Southern Nevada Music Co., Inc., claiming injuries from a slip and fall accident within the respondent's store which was operated by her son-in-law. The complaint was filed June 19, 1967. From the minutes of the trial court we learn that the trial was started on February 8, 1971, approximately 3 1/2 years after the action was started.
During or after the jury selection defendant's counsel moved for a mistrial in chambers alleging certain conduct on the part of the plaintiff and her present husband, and further, that appellant's attorney (not the attorney who commenced the case for plaintiff but a newly substituted attorney) had asked questions of the jurors relative to insurance which, of course, was blatant and flagrant if not intentional error. The court declared a mistrial, whereupon appellant's counsel immediately moved for leave to amend the complaint to increase the amount of damages and to enlarge upon the purported cause of appellant's fall, to wit, that if she did not slip on a cigarette butt, she fell because of an accumulation of floor wax. The motion was denied.
Rule 15(a) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure clearly provides that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. This does not, however, mean that a trial judge may not, in a proper case, deny a motion to amend. If that were the intent, leave of court would not be required. A motion for leave to amend is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its action in denying the motion should not be held to be error unless that discretion has been abused. Leggett v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 178 F.2d 436, 439 (10th Cir. 1949); Nelson v. Sierra Construction Corp., 77 Nev. 334, 343, 364 P.2d 402, 406 (1961). Cf. Nevada Bank of Commerce v. Edgewater, Inc., 84 Nev. 651, 653, 446 P.2d 990, 991 (1968).
We have held that in the absence of any apparent or declared reason--such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant--the leave sought should be freely given. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962), cited in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc.
...See Coggins, 492 N.E.2d at 1116; Wemer, 502 S.E.2d at 900-01; American Network, 834 S.W.2d at 299. 83. Stephens v. Southern Nevada Music Co., 89 Nev. 104, 105-06, 507 P.2d 138, 139 (1973). 84. See Model Bus. Corp. Act. Ann. § 13.02 cmt. at 13-16 (3d ed. Supp.1996). 85. Id. at 13-17. 86. See......
-
Prestige of Beverly Hills, Inc. v. Weber
...Rodeo, see NRCP 15(a) (district court shall give leave to amend pleading “when justice so requires”); Stephens v. Southern Nevada Music Co., 89 Nev. 104, 105, 507 P.2d 138, 139 (1973), and as alter egos of Rodeo, Prestige and Shokrian adequately represented its interests. NEC Electronics In......
-
Russo v. Shac, LLC
...Although leave to amend is not appropriate in the face of "undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive," Stephens v. S. Nev. Music Co., 89 Nev. 104, 105-06, 507 P.2d 138, 139 (1973), "when a complaint can be amended to state a claim for relief, leave to amend, rather than dismissal, is the pr......
-
University & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Sutton
...237, 243, 391 P.2d 737, 739 (1964) (quoting Schick v. Finch, 8 F.R.D. 639, 640 (S.D.N.Y.1944)). 38. Stephens v. Southern Nevada Music Co., 89 Nev. 104, 105, 507 P.2d 138, 139 (1973). 39. Drummond v. Mid-West Growers, 91 Nev. 698, 542 P.2d 198 40. Hilton Hotels v. Butch Lewis Productions, 10......