AJS Constr., Inc. v. Pankopf

1 Citing case

  1. MB Am., Inc. v. Alaska Pac. Leasing Co.

    132 Nev. Adv. Op. 8 (Nev. 2016)   Cited 61 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "that the mediation provision in the parties' contract is an enforceable condition precedent to litigation" and concluding that a grant of summary judgment was proper where the plaintiff initiated litigation "without complying with the prelitigation mediation provision in the Agreement"

    MBA also contends that the district court erred by not staying the proceedings and ordering the parties to mediate. MBA relies on NRS 38.221(6)–(7) and the unpublished order in AJS Construction, Inc. v. Pankopf, Docket No. 60729, 2013 WL 5445188 (Order of Summary Reversal and Remand, September 25, 2013), for this proposition. Because the authorities cited by MBA address arbitration, as opposed to mediation, they are inapposite here. Indeed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has stated that “the law of arbitration is in nearly every respect an illogical foundation for enforcement of mediation agreements.”