Opinion ID: 2639670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The California superior court judgment in Ramirez

Text: The district court found that the California superior court's jury verdict for Harrah's in the Ramirez case barred appellants' claims based on issue preclusion. The district court determined that the claims were almost identical, including negligence and premises liability resulting from injuries and damages sustained in the brawl, and the jury specifically found that Harrah's was not negligent. We conclude that appellants were not in privity with the Ramirez plaintiffs, and therefore, issue preclusion is not applicable. Appellants argue that they were not in privity with Mel Ramirez because he was a member of the Mongols and there is a divergence of interests between an outlaw biker and innocent bystanders. We agree with appellants' argument because Harrah's erroneously relies on federal issue preclusion law in its answering brief, and it failed to prove privity between appellants and Ramirez. First, Harrah's erroneously relies on federal law in its answering brief, in particular, the Supreme Court's decision in Taylor, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2161. As discussed above, it is well established Nevada law that state law applies in determining the preclusive effect of prior state decisions. Although federal law allows nonparty issue preclusion under the adequate representation exception, Nevada requires privity to ensure due process to nonparty plaintiffs. Paradise Palms, 89 Nev. at 30-31, 505 P.2d at 599. Nevada has no exception analogous to the federal adequate representation exception. However, much like federal preclusion and the adequate representation exception, Nevada's privity requirement protects nonparties' due process rights. Second, Harrah's failed to demonstrate privity between appellants and Ramirez. In this case, appellants had no legal or private relationship with Ramirez such that they were in privity with him. In fact, the record is void of any evidence demonstrating that either Ramirez or appellants knew of each other's cases or had any relationship. See Marine Midland Bank v. Monroe, 104 Nev. 307, 307-08, 756 P.2d 1193, 1194 (1988) (holding a creditor of a husband and wife was not bound by divorce decree assigning debt to husband because it was not a party to the proceeding). Thus, we conclude that the district court erred when it determined that the Ramirez case had a preclusive effect. Moreover, in Nevada, the negligence issue hinged on foreseeability pursuant to NRS 651.015(l)(a), because to prove Harrah's owed a duty, breached the duty, and caused appellants' harm, appellants had to prove the wrongful act was foreseeable to Harrah's. However, Harrah's provides no evidence regarding what law the California court applied and whether foreseeability was as central to the Ramirez case as it was in appellants' case. Further, although discovery was consolidated for liability purposes in several federal and state cases, nothing in the record indicates that the Ramirez case was consolidated with these other cases. Therefore, we are convinced that under Nevada law appellants were not in privity with Ramirez.