Before Saitta, Hardesty and Parraguirre. Opinion by Hardesty.
In this continuation of the well-known attorney misconduct case Lioce v. Cohen, 124 Nev. 1 (2008), the Court addressed whether a district court retains jurisdiction after voluntary dismissal of an action to order sanctions for attorney misconduct that occurred before the dismissal. In Lioce, the Nevada Supreme Court determined that defense attorney Phillip Emerson nullified the jury by making impermissible comments reflecting his personal opinion of the case and remanded with instructions for the district court to determine the necessity of a new trial. The district court granted the new trial as to a portion of the case and plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for sanctions based on Emerson’s misconduct in the first trial. The district court announced its intent to impose sanctions, but did not immediately file a written order. The parties stipulated to dismiss the case, and after the order dismissing was entered, the district court entered its order granting sanctions. Following federal precedent regarding FRCP 11 sanctions, the Supreme Court concluded that a court retains jurisdiction over the collateral matter of imposing sanctions after parties stipulate to dismiss an action with prejudice. The Court further concluded that the district court had the inherent authority to sanction attorney misconduct and the sanctions did not need to be authorized by NRS 7.085. Finally, addressing authority regarding the proportionality of the sanctions award, the Court emphasized the district court’s discretion in determining an appropriate amount of sanctions and concluded that even though only nominal damages had been awarded in other instances of attorney trial misconduct, in this case the award of over $19,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs accrued in preparing for the first trial were not unreasonable since Emerson’s misconduct caused the court to order a new trial. Petition denied. (By Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson)
