Opinion
ADKT 398.
October 2, 2006.
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2006, the Honorable Robert E. Rose, Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court, requested information from the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts concerning court administration, case management, financing, staffing, and other matters related to the proper administration of those judicial districts; and
WHEREAS, the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts provided extensive written responses to that request; and
WHEREAS, Chief Justice Rose then petitioned this court for a public hearing concerning the court administration of the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts, including the operation of the business court docket in each district and suggestions to improve the handling of business court cases; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2006, this court held a public hearing and considered information from the chief judges, other judges, and court administrators of the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts; and
WHEREAS, based on the information provided to this court, it appears that amendment of the Local Rules of Practice for the Second (WDCR) and Eighth (EDCR) Judicial District Courts is warranted to require that the district court judges selected to handle the business court docket have experience in the primary subject matters that are assigned to the business court docket; and
WHEREAS, it further appears that evaluation of the business court docket and handling of business court cases in the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts is warranted to ensure that the business court docket is fully utilized and properly managed, accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. WDCR 2.1 shall be amended and shall read as set forth in Exhibit A, and EDCR 1.33 shall be amended and shall read as set forth in Exhibit B.
2. The chief judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court shall assign two judges of that district to the business court docket as provided in amended EDCR 1.33 no later than December 1, 2006.
3. No later than December 1, 2006, the court administrator for the Eighth Judicial District Court shall provide the chief judge of that district with a report identifying all cases pending in the district that involve "business matters" as defined in EDCR 1.61. The chief judge shall promptly reassign those cases to the judges assigned to the business court docket under amended EDCR 1.33.
4. The judges assigned to the business court docket in the Eighth Judicial District Court under amended EDCR 1.33 and the judge assigned to the business court docket in the Second Judicial District Court shall meet and confer no later than December 31, 2006, to discuss the effective handling of the business court docket in order to prepare the following reports:
a. The business court judges in the Eighth Judicial District Court shall submit a written report to this court setting forth a plan to expand the business court docket in the Eighth Judicial District Court. The report shall be submitted no later than January 31, 2007.
b. The business court judges in the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts shall submit a written report to this court no later than January 31, 2007, describing how those courts will: (i) provide or maintain effective case management, including early case conferences and settlement conferences for the business court docket in each district, and (ii) cooperate, between districts, in the conduct of settlement conferences for business court cases.
5. The Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts each shall file an annual report with this court regarding the processing of business court cases in the district, including the number of business court cases filed and the disposition rates for those cases. The annual report shall cover a single fiscal year and shall be filed no later than September 1 for the fiscal year ending June 30. The first annual report shall be submitted on or before September 1, 2007, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments to WDCR 2.1 and EDCR 1.33 shall be effective immediately. The clerk of this court shall cause a notice of entry of this order to be published in the official publication of the State Bar of Nevada. Publication of this order shall be accomplished by the clerk disseminating copies of this order to all subscribers of the advance sheets of the Nevada Reports and all persons and agencies listed in NRS 2.345, and to the executive director of the State Bar of Nevada. The certificate of the clerk of this court as to the accomplishment of the above-described publication of notice of entry and dissemination of this order shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption and publication of the foregoing rule amendments.
NANCY A. BECKER, MARK GIBBONS, JAMES W. HARDESTY, A. WILLIAM MAUPIN, MICHAEL L. DOUGLAS, and RON D. PARRAGUIRRE, Associate Justices.
EXHIBIT A AMENDMENTS TO RULE 2.1 OF THE LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Rule 2.1. Business court docket.
1. A civil action shall be assigned to the business court docket if, regardless of the nature of relief sought, the primary subject matter of the action is:
(a) A dispute concerning the validity, control, operation or governance of entities created under NRS Chapters 78-88, including shareholder derivative actions;
(b) A dispute concerning a trade-mark or trade name; a claim asserted pursuant to the Nevada Trade Secrets Act, NRS 600A.010, et seq.; a claim asserted pursuant to the Nevada Securities Act, NRS 90.211, et seq.; a claim asserted pursuant to the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, NRS 598.0903, et seq.; a claim involving investment securities governed by NRS 104.8101, et seq.; or,
(c) Any dispute among business entities if the presiding judge of the business court docket determines that the case would benefit from enhanced case management.
2. Actions in which the primary claim alleges personal injury or products liability, damage of a consumer by a business, wrongful termination of employment, or actions arising from a landlord-tenant relationship shall not be included in the business court docket.
3. A party in an action assigned to another department of the court may request that the action be transferred to the business court docket. Upon filing of such a request, the clerk shall transfer the case file to the presiding judge of the business court docket who shall thereupon determine whether to assume jurisdiction of the case. The decision of the presiding judge of the business court docket to accept or decline jurisdiction of the action is final, and is not appealable nor reviewable upon any petition for extraordinary relief.
4. The presiding judge of the business court docket may hear and decide all other civil and criminal actions assigned to such judge as any other general jurisdiction district court judge.
5. The presiding judge of the business court docket shall be appointed by the chief judge and must have experience as a judge or practitioner in the subject matters listed in subsection 1 of this rule. The judge so selected shall serve for a term of two years unless reappointed. Management of the business court docket shall be the highest case management priority of the presiding judge of the business court docket, who may request reassignment by the chief judge of civil or criminal cases, as necessary, consistent with this case management priority.
6. Subject to approval by the presiding judge of the business court docket and the chief judge, an action filed in any other judicial district may be transferred to the business court docket of this district if all parties and the district judge assigned to the case consent.
7. The presiding judge of the business court docket may transfer a business action to another judge of this district for any and all proceedings, subject to the consent of the judge to whom the action is transferred.
8. If the presiding judge of the business court docket is the subject of a peremptory challenge pursuant to S.C.R. 48.1, the clerk shall randomly reassign the case to another department of the court.
EXHIBIT B AMENDMENTS TO RULE 1.33 OF THE LOCAL RULES OF PRACTICE FOR THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
Rule 1.33. Specialization of judges; procedure for selection. The chief judge must assign the judges of the district (excluding family court judges) to specialized divisions of the court for 2-year terms as needed. The assignments must provide for rotation of the judges among the various divisions. In making the assignments, the chief judge shall request the district judges to recommend the assignments, and shall take into account the desires of each individual judge. The final selection, however, is left to the discretion of the chief judge. Assignments shall be made as follows:
(a) Civil/Criminal division: judges as needed;
(b) Business court division: at least 2 judges who have experience as a judge or practitioner in "business matters" as defined in Rule 1.61(a);
(c) Civil only division: judges as needed;
(d) Drug Court/Overflow division: judges as needed;
(e) Overflow division: judges as needed.