Humphries v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that an assailant was not a necessary party under NRCP 19 in a premises liability action against the casino owner. Because the court could afford complete relief between the existing parties and the casino could implead the assailant under NRCP 14 to pursue contribution, the district court erred by compelling joinder. The court granted a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its joinder order.

Holdings

1. Mandamus relief was appropriate because the joinder order created an immediate risk that the plaintiffs would have to assert time-barred claims or suffer dismissal, and the petition presented an important unsettled issue concerning NRCP 19(a), NRS 41.141, and Café Moda.
2. An alleged cotortfeasor is not a necessary party under NRCP 19(a) to a plaintiff's action against another tortfeasor when complete relief can be afforded among the existing parties and the absent cotortfeasor's interests will not be impaired or create inconsistent obligations.
3. NRS 41.141 does not require joinder of an absent intentional tortfeasor when the plaintiff has sued only one defendant; without the absent tortfeasor as a defendant, the statute does not require apportionment among multiple defendants or make the sole defendant severally liable.
4. A defendant may implead an absent cotortfeasor under NRCP 14(a) on an inchoate contribution claim, even though the plaintiff did not sue that person and the contribution claim has not yet accrued.

Questions Presented

1. Whether extraordinary writ relief was appropriate to review the district court's interlocutory order compelling joinder.
2. Whether an alleged intentional cotortfeasor is a necessary party under NRCP 19(a) when plaintiffs sue only a premises owner for negligence arising from the same injury.
3. Whether Nevada's comparative-negligence statute, NRS 41.141, requires joinder of the absent cotortfeasor to permit apportionment of fault or several liability.
4. Whether the premises owner could instead implead the alleged assailant as a third-party defendant under NRCP 14(a) and pursue contribution.

Disposition

writ_granted