N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KEVIN FEAGINS; YOLANDA FEAGINS; KEVIN FEAGINS, Jr.; JOSHUA FEAGINS; ANDR E FEAGINS; JONATHAN FEAGINS, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. TR UM P OR GANIZATION; TR UM P R UFFIN TOW ER

I, LLC ; TR

UM P INTER NATIONAL HOTEL & TOW ER
- LAS VEGAS UNIT OW

N ER S ASSOC IATION; TR

U M P R UFFIN C OM M ER C IAL, LLC ; OTIS ELEVATOR

C O., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17359 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01121-GMNGW F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Gloria M . Nava rro, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 7, 2015 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, B YB EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED D EC 18 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.The distric t c ourt e rre d by holding tha

t Ne va da la w re quire s e xpe rt te stim ony for a c la im of produc ts lia

b ility
. K rauseInc . v . Little , 34 P.3d 566, 571–72 (Ne v. 2001). W

he re the re are no a lte rna tive e xpla nations for a
m a lfunc tion, Ne v a da la

w re quire s only

e v ide nc e of a

n une xpe c te d a

nd da nge rous
m a lfunc tion to e sta

blish a de fe c t. Se e e .g., Stac k

i e w ic z v . N issan Motor C

o rp. in U.S.A. , 686 P.2d 925, 928 (Nev . 1984). The de c l ara tions m a de by m e m b e rs of the Fe a gins fa

m ily , in c onjunc tion with the vide ota pe tha t de pic te d the e ve nts tha

t
oc c urre d inside the e le vator, provide d suffic ie nt e vide nc e to surviveOtis Ele vator C o.'s m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt’ s opinion wa s othe rwise c o rre c t. The Fe a gins pre se nte d no dire c t e vide nc e of ne glige nc e by Trum p. 1 Nor c ould a

jury infe r ne glige nc e unde r a the ory of re s ipsa

loquitur be c a

use , at m ost, Trum

p e xe rc ise d joint c ontrol
ove r the e le vator with Otis Ele vator C o. Fire m an’s Fund Am. Ins. C os. v . K nobbe , 562 P.2d 825, 825–26 (Ne v. 1977); Landmark

Hote l & C

asino, Inc . v . Moore , 757 P.2d 361, 363 (Ne v. 1988). The Fe a gins pre s e nte d no e vide nc e showing

“ oppre ssion, fra

u d or m a lic e ” a s re quire d for punitive dam a ge s. Ne v. R e v. Stat. § 42.005. And the

distric t c ourt did not a

b use its disc re tion by re fusing to re ope n

1 W e use the te rm “ Trum p” to re fe r to a l l Trum

p de fe nda nts: the Trum

p Organiz ation; Trum

p R uffin Towe r I, LLC ; Trum p Inte rna tiona l Hote l & Towe r - La s Ve ga s Unit Owne rs Assoc iation; a nd Trum p R uffin C om

m e rc ia l , LLC
. 2disc ove ry

give n the Fe a gins’ la c k of dilige nc e both in fa iling to se e k a sc he dule
m odific a tion be fore the c l ose of disc ove ry and in fa iling to ge ne ra te an e xpe rt
re port during the

disc ove ry pe riod. Se e e .g., J ohnson v . Mammoth Re c re ations, Inc
. , 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th C ir. 1992); N idds v . Sc hindle r Ele v ator C orp. , 113 F.3d 912, 921 (9th C ir. 1996). W e V ACAT E an d R E M AND for furthe r proc e e dings c o nsiste nt with this disposition. The

Fe a g ins sha ll be ar Trum

p’ s c osts on a

ppe a l. Otis shal l be a

r the Fe a gins’ and its own c osts on a ppe a l.

3