Caesars Entertainment Operating Co.’s plan to offer chartered flights to its casinos has flown off course and into a multimillion-dollar legal storm.
Charter operator Aerodynamics Inc. of Michigan filed a $12 million lawsuit in July accusing Caesars, a former executive of a Caesars subsidiary and a charter competitor of stealing trade secrets and breaching a three-year contract worth $85 million.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Dorsey of Nevada granted Aerodynamics and its parent company, ADI Holdings of Georgia, a partial preliminary injunction in the case, saying the business “is likely to succeed on the merits of its breach of contract and misappropriation claims” and that it could suffer “irreparable harm” without the injunction.
The injunction was “a significant and extraordinary remedy” chosen before any discovery in the case, said ADI’s attorney, Dana Hobart, of the Los Angeles law firm of Hobart Linzer. That means the order was based solely on the merits of ADI’s claims.
The order prohibits the acquisition, use or disclosure of any of ADI’s proprietary information. It applies to former Caesars executive Steven Markhoff; his current business, International Management Solutions; charter-service providers Via Air and Via Airlines; and Via Air Chairman Amos Vizer.
2016 Best Lawyers in America. The list of Best Lawyers in America for 2016 includes the following from Southern Nevada, listed in alphabetical order by firm:
Pisanelli Bice
• Todd Bice, appellate practice, commercial litigation, litigation – First Amendment, litigation – land use and zoning, litigation – mergers and acquisitions
• James Pisanelli, bet-the-company litigation, commercial litigation, construction law, litigation – construction and litigation – real estate
• Debra Spinelli, commercial litigation
• Jordan Smith, appellate practice
Click here to view the full article.
CARSON CITY — Another chapter in the three-year legal battle between Wynn Resorts and Japanese businessman Kazuo Okada was played out before the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Todd L. Bice, attorney for Wynn, asked the court to throw out a district court ruling that it must turn over 78 records in the pre-trial maneuvering of both sides.
Bice said there was “no factual basis” on the ruling by District Judge Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez that these records must be given to lawyers for Okada. Bice argued that there is no relevance of these records to the existing case in which Okada maintains he was forced out of the company and that his 20 percent stock was purchased at a discount rate.
Bice argued that Okada and his lawyers have a “vivid imagination” in asking for these records that are not tied to the pending suit.
But Stephen Peek, attorney for Okada, told the court the records may show that Okada was forced out of the company to protect Steve Wynn. He argued that Gonzalez has handled the suit for three years and was familiar with which records should be submitted to Okada’s lawyers.
“She (Judge Gonzalez) should not be denied for doing her job,” said Peek.
Click here to view the full article.
LAS VEGAS – James J. Pisanelli and Todd L. Bice, founding partners of the litigation firm Pisanelli Bice PLLC, announced the firm has received five Tier 1 rankings in Las Vegas by U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” in 2016.
Pisanelli Bice received a Tier 1 ranking for practice areas including Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Land Use & Zoning, Litigation – Mergers & Acquisitions, and Litigation – Real Estate.
The U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” rankings, for the sixth consecutive year, are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. Clients and peers were asked to evaluate firms based on the following criteria: responsiveness, understanding of a business and its needs, cost-effectiveness, integrity and civility, as well as whether they would refer a matter to the firm and/or consider the firm a worthy competitor.
The 2016 rankings are based on the highest number of participating firms and highest number of client ballots on record. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have a lawyer listed in The Best Lawyers in America, which recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S. More than 21,000 attorneys provided almost 700,000 law firm assessments, and more than 8,000 clients provided more than 47,000 evaluations. Awards were given in 74 national practice areas and 122 metropolitan practice areas.
Click here to view the full article.
Appellate advocacy is the art of persuading, through oral and written communication, a majority of the judges or justices hearing your case to rule in your client’s favor. To be effective, a mastery of the relevant law and policy is not always enough. As Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has explained, “a sense of the audience is the key to an advocate’s rhetorical effectiveness. The advocate must think his way into the brains of the audience.” Despite the creation of the new Court of Appeals, the Nevada Supreme Court remains the primary audience for the Nevada business community’s appeals, as matters originating in business court are presumptively retained by the state’s highest tribunal.1 Thus, an appellate practitioner representing Nevada’s businesses must place himself or herself inside the minds of the Nevada Supreme Court Justices by knowing how they vote in addition to the rationale set forth in the Court’s opinions explaining why they voted in the manner that they did.
One innovative way for an advocate to study the appellate audience is by tracking the voting relationships between Nevada’s Supreme Court Justices; think of it as a form of appellate “moneyball” or “jury research.” For example, the following charts represent the level of agreement between Nevada Supreme Court Justices in published en banc cases during the 2014 calendar year. The cells represent the percentage of time that each of the Justices agreed with each other in full, in part, or in judgment in a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion.
