`
`
`
`
`IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`
`
`JARED MOSS
`
`
`Plaintiff-Respondent,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`SEAN EDWARD TOMESCO,
`individually; SECOND OPINION
`PLUMBING, LLC, a domestic limited
`liability company
`
`
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronically Filed
`Apr 16 2025 05:02 PM
`Elizabeth A. Brown
`Clerk of Supreme Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Supreme Court No.: 90330
`
`DOCKETING STATEMENT CIVIL APPEALS
`
`
`GENERAL INFORMATION
`
`Appellants must complete this docketing statement in compliance with Nevada Rules
`of Appellate Procedure (NRAP) 14(a). The purpose of the docketing statement is to
`assist the Supreme Court in screening jurisdiction, identifying issues on appeal,
`assessing assignment to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, scheduling cases for
`oral argument and settlement conferences, classifying cases for expedited treatment,
`and compiling statistical information.
`
`
`WARNING
`
`
`This statement must be completed fully, accurately, and on time. NRAP 14(c). The
`Supreme Court may impose sanctions on counsel or the appellant if it appears that the
`information provided is incomplete or inaccurate. Id. Failure to fill out the statement
`completely or to file it in a timely manner constitutes grounds for the imposition of
`sanctions, including a fine and/or dismissal of the appeal. Id.
`
` A
`
` complete list of the documents that must be attached appears as Question 28 on this
`docketing statement. Failure to attach all required documents will result in the delay
`of your appeal and may result in the imposition of sanctions. Id.
`
`This court has noted that when obligations under NRAP 14 to complete the docketing
`statement properly and conscientiously are not taken seriously, valuable judicial
`resources of this court are wasted, making the imposition of sanctions appropriate. See
`KDI Sylvan Pools v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 344, 810 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1991).
`Please use divider pages to separate any attached documents.
`
`
`
`
`
`Docket 90330 Document 2025-17207
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Judicial District: Eighth Judicial District County: Clark County
`
`Judge: Hon. Eric Johnson
`
`
`
`
`
`District Ct. Case No.: A-21-840372-C
`
`Department: 20
`
`
`
`2. Person filing this docketing statement:
`
`Name: Steven G. Knauss, Esq.
`
`
`
`Bar #: 12242
`
`Law Firm Name: MESSNER REEVES, LLP
`
`Address: 8945 West Russell Road, Suite 300
`
` Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`
`Telephone: 702-363-5100
`
`Email address: sknauss@messner.com
`
`Client(s): Sean Edward Tomesco
`
`Second Opinion Plumbing, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`If this is a joint statement by multiple appellants, add the names and addresses
`
`of the other appellants and, if applicable, the names of their counsel and have
`
`them sign the certification below. N/A
`
`Name
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Bar # (if applicable)
`
`Law Firm Name (if applicable)
`
`Address
`
`Telephone #
`
`Email address
`
`Client name(s) (if represented by counsel):
`
`
`
`I certify I concur in the filing of this statement.
`
` Signature of other appellant(s) or of counsel for other appellant Date
`
`Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Nature of disposition (check all that apply):
`
`☐ Judgment after bench trial
`
`
`
`
`
`☒ Judgment after jury verdict
`
`☐ Summary judgment
`
`☐ Default judgment
`
`☐ Grant/Denial of NRCP 60(b) relief
`
`☐ Grant/Denial of injunction
`
`☐ Dismissal:
`☐ Lack of Jurisdiction
`☐ Failure to state a claim
`☐ Failure to prosecute
`☐ Other (specify):
`
`☐ Divorce Decree:
`☐ Original
`☐ Modification
`☐ Grant/Denial of declaratory relief
`
`☐ Review of agency determination
`
`
`
`☒ Other disposition (specify): District Court Order of Post-Verdict Attorney
`
`Fees and Costs
`
`
`4. Does this appeal raise issues concerning any of the following? No.
`
`☐ Child Custody
`
`☐ Venue
`
`☐ Termination of parental rights
`
`
`5. Pending and prior proceedings in this court. List the case name and docket
`number of all appeals or original proceedings presently or previously pending
`before this court which are related to this appeal:
`
`Jared Moss v. Sean Edward Tomesco, et. al: NV Supreme Ct Case No. 89509
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`6. Pending and prior proceedings in other courts. List the case name, number,
`and court of all pending and prior proceedings in other courts which are related to
`this appeal (e.g., bankruptcy, consolidated or bifurcated proceedings) and their
`dates of disposition:
`
`N/A
`
`7. Nature of the action. Briefly describe the nature of the action and the result
`below:
`
`This matter arose from a motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accident that occurred on July
`9, 2020. Liability was not disputed, and trial proceeded on causation and damages.
`After deliberations on March 29, 2024, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
`Plaintiff/Respondent and awarding him a total of $5,000,000 in damages. However, a
`judgment was not entered until September 19, 2024.
`
`Thereafter, Plaintiff/Respondent filed a Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Interest,
`which was opposed by Defendant/Appellant. The Court’s order from the same
`awarded Plaintiff a total of $2,578,990.14 (including accruing interest), despite
`misapplying and misconstruing the evaluative factors defined in Beattie v. Thomas,
`99 Nev. 579 (1983), as well as clearly mischaracterizing the defense of the matter as
`being brought in bad faith, made possible primarily because the Court improperly
`excluded critical evidence on the eve of trial.
`
`
`8. Issues on appeal. State concisely the principal issue(s) in this appeal (attach
`separate sheets as necessary):
`
`Appellant appeals the grant of attorney fees based on NRS 18.010 and Nevada
`caselaw precedents, including the propriety of characterizing the defense as being
`brought in bad faith.
`
`9. Pending proceedings in this court raising the same or similar issues. If you
`are aware of any proceedings presently pending before this court which raises the
`same or similar issues raised in this appeal, list the case name and docket numbers
`and identify the same or similar issue raised:
`
`None.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10. Constitutional issues. Does this appeal challenge the constitutionality of a
`Nevada Statute or ordinance?
`
` No. Continue to #11.
`
` ☒
`
`☐ Yes:
`
`a. Identify the Nevada statute or ordinance being challenged:
`
`b. Is the State, any State agency, or a State officer or employee a party to this
`
`appeal in an official capacity?
`
`☐ Yes ☐ No
`
`
`11. Other Issues.
`
`a. Does this appeal involve any of the following issues? No.
`☐ Reversal of well-settled Nevada precedent (identify the case(s))
`☐ An issue arising under the United States and/or Nevada Constitutions
`☐ A substantial issue of first impression
`☐ An issue of public policy
`☐ An issue where en banc consideration is necessary to maintain uniformity of
`this court’s decisions
`☐ A ballot question
`b. If so, explain:
`
`
`12. Assignment to the Court of Appeals or retention in the Supreme Court.
`Briefly set forth whether the matter is presumptively retained by the Supreme
`Court or assigned to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, and cite the
`subparagraph(s) of the Rule under which the matter falls.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to NRAP 17(b)(5), the Court of Appeals is assigned appeals from
`judgments, exclusive of interest attorney fees and costs, of less than $250,000.
`Therefore, given this appellate matter seeks an appeal regarding an award of attorney
`fees of 2,578,990.14 (including accruing interest), Appellant believes this matter
`should be retained by the Supreme Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`13. Trial. If this action proceeded to trial, how many days did the trial last? 4 days
`Was it a: ☐ bench trial ☒ jury trial?
`
`
`14. Judicial Disqualification. Do you intend to file a motion to disqualify or have a
`justice/judge recuse him/herself from participation in this appeal? See NRAP 35.
`If so, which Justice?
`
`
`No.
`
`15. Oral Argument. Would you object to submission of this appeal for disposition
`without oral argument?
`☒ Yes ☐ No
`
`
`
`TIMELINESS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`16. Date the written judgment or order appealed from was/were filed in the
`district court: February 18, 2025
`If no written judgment or order was filed in the district court, explain the basis
`for seeking appellate review: N/A
`
`17. Date written notice of entry of judgment or order was served: February 18,
`2025
`Was service by:
`☐ Delivery
`☒ Mail/electronic/fax
`
`
`18. Were any motions seeking relief under NRCP 50(b), 52(b), 59, or 60 or
`seeking rehearing or reconsideration filed in the district court either before
`or after the notice of appeal was filed? (attach a copy of the motion)
`☐ No, continue to # 19.
`☒ Yes:
`a. Specify the type of motion and the date the motion was filed in the district
`court (check all that apply)
`☒ NRCP 50(b)
`
`☐ NRCP 52(b)
`
`
`Date filed: April 26, 2024
`Date filed: _____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`☒ NRCP 59
`
`
`
`☐ NRCP 60
`
`
`
`☐ Rehearing/Reconsideration
`
`
`
`
`
`Date filed: April 26, 2024
`Date filed: _____________
`Date filed: _____________
`
`
`
`b. Date the motion was served: April 26, 2024
`
`
`
`c. How was the motion served:
`☒ Electronic or personal delivery
`
`
`
`d. Date the written order resolving the motion was filed: September 19, 2024
`
`
`
`e. Date written notice of entry of the order resolving the motion was served:
` September 19, 2024.
`
`
`
`f. Was service by:
`☒ Electronic or personal delivery
`
`19. Are there any motions other than those identified in #18 above still pending
`in the district court?
`☐ Yes. Identify the motion and the date it was filed in the district court:
`☒ No.
`
`
`20. Date the notice of appeal was filed in the district court: March 19, 2025
`
`If more than one party has appealed from the judgment or order, list the date
`each notice of appeal was filed and identify by name the party filing the
`notice of appeal: N/A
`
`
`21. Specify the statute or rule governing the time limit for filing the notice of
`appeal, e.g., NRAP 4(a) or other: NRAP 4(a)
`
`
`///
`
`///
`
`///
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`SUBSTANTIVE APPEALABILITY
`
`22. Specify the statute or other authority granting this court jurisdiction to
`review the judgment or order appealed from:
`a.
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(2)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(1)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(4)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(3)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(6)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(5)
`☒ NRAP 3A(b)(8)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(7)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(10)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(9)
`☐ NRAP 3A(b)(11) ☐ NRAP 3A(b)(12)
`☐ NRS 38.205
`☐ NRS 233B.150
`
`☐ NRS 703.376
`☐ Other (specify): _____________
`
`
`
`
`b. Explain how each authority provides a basis for appeal from the judgment or
`order:
`
`
`This is an appeal from a special order entered after final judgment which granted
`attorney fees to Respondent.
`
`
`
`
`23. List all parties involved in the action or consolidated actions in the district
`court:
`a. Parties:
`Defendants: Second Opinion Plumbing, LLC
` Sean Edward Tomesco
`Plaintiff: Jared Moss
`
`b. If all parties in the district court are not parties to this appeal, explain in detail
`why those parties are not involved in this appeal, e.g., formally dismissed, not
`served, or other: N/A
`
`24. Give a brief description (3 to 5 words) of each party's separate claims,
`counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims and the date of formal
`disposition of each claim.
`
`
`Plaintiff brought claims of negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence against
`Defendant Sean Edward Tomesco, and claims of vicarious liability, and negligent
`hiring/training/supervision/retention against Defendant Second Opinion Plumbing.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`All claims were resolved by jury verdict entered September 19, 2024.
`
`25. Did the judgment or order appealed from adjudicate ALL the claims alleged
`below and the rights and liabilities of ALL the parties to the action or
`consolidated actions below?
`☒ Yes
`☐ No
`
`26. If you answered "No" to question 24, complete the following: N/A
`a. Specify the claims remaining pending below:
`
`
`
`b. Specify the parties remaining below:
`
`
`
`c. Did the district court certify the judgment or order appealed from as a final
`judgment pursuant to NRCP 54(b)? ☐ Yes ☐ No
`
`
`
`d. Did the district court make an express determination, pursuant to NRCP 54(b),
`that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for the entry of
`judgment? ☐ No ☐ Yes
`
`27. If you answered "No" to any part of question 25, explain the basis for seeking
`appellate review (e.g., order is independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)):
`N/A
`
`28. Attach file-stamped copies of the following documents:
`▪ The latest-filed complaint, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims
`▪ Any motion(s) identified in questions 18 and the order(s) resolving the
`motion(s)
`▪ Any motions identified in question 19
`▪ Orders or NRCP 41(a)(1) dismissals that formally resolve each claim,
`counterclaim, cross- claim and/or third-party claim asserted in the action or
`consolidated action below, even if not at issue on appeal
`▪ All orders that finally disposes of any parties in the action below, even if not
`at issue on appeal
`▪ Any other order challenged on appeal
`▪ Notices of entry for each attached order
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VERIFICATION
`
` I
`
` declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this docketing statement, that
`the information provided in this docketing statement is true and complete to the
`best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and that I have attached all
`required documents to this docketing statement.
`
`
`
`
`DATED this 16th day of April, 2025.
`
`MESSNER REEVES LLP
`
`/s/ Steven Knauss
`_________________________________
`M. CALEB MEYER, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 13379
`STEVEN G. KNAUSS, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 12242
`8945 W. Russell Road, Ste. 300
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`Attorneys for Appellants Second Opinion
`Plumbing, LLC and Sean Edward Tomesco
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I certify that on the 16th day of April, 2025, I served a copy of this completed docketing
`
`statement upon all parties to this appeal:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`☒ by electronic means to registered users of the court’s electronic filing system
`
`If served other than through the court's electronic filing system, enter the names
`and email address of the parties served by this means and attach a copy of each
`party’s written consent authorizing service by this means. See NRAP 25(c)(2)
`
`☐ by personally serving it upon him/her;
`
`☐ by mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following
`
`address(es):
`
`/s/ James Alvarado
`Signature:
`
`
`
`
`
` Date: 4/16/2025
`
`
`Printed name: James Alvarado
`
`Law Firm Name: Messner Reeves LLP
`
`Address: 8945 W. Russell Road, Ste. 300
`
`
`
` Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`
`Telephone #: 702-363-5100
`
`Email address: jalvarado@messner.com
`
`Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT “1”
`EXHIBIT “1”
`
`EXHIBIT “1”
`EXHIBIT “1”
`
`
`
`
`COMP
`
`JUSTIN W. WILSON, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 14646
`
`HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC
`2630 S. Jones Blvd
`
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
`
`Phone: (702) 628-9888
`Fax: (702) 960-4118
`
`E-Mail: jwilson@lvattorneys.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JARED MOSS, individually,
`
`
`vs.
`
`SEAN EDWARD TOMESCO,
`individually; SECOND OPINION
`PLUMBING, LLC., a domestic limited
`liability company; DOES I through X,
`inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS XI
`through XX, inclusive,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Electronically Filed
`8/31/2021 3:58 PM
`Steven D. Grierson
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`CASE NO: A-21-840372-C
`Department 20
`
`CASE NO.:
`DEPT. NO.:
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`Plaintiff JARED MOSS, by and through his attorney of record, JUSTIN W. WILSON,
`
`ESQ., of HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC, and for his causes of action against Defendants, and each
`
`of them, complains and alleges as follows:
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`1.
`
`That Plaintiff JARED MOSS (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is, and at all times mentioned
`
`herein, was, a resident of the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
`
`2.
`
`That Defendant SEAN TOMESCO (hereinafter “TOMESCO”) is, and at all times
`
`mentioned herein, was, a resident of the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case Number: A-21-840372-C
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`That Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC. is, and at all times mentioned
`
`
`3.
`
`herein, was a domestic limited-liability company, licensed to do business in the County of
`
`
`That the true names and capacities of the Defendants designated herein as Doe or Roe
`
`Clark, State of Nevada
`
`
`4.
`
`Corporations are presently unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants
`
`by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of these defendants are
`
`ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint accordingly.
`
`
`That at all times pertinent, Defendants were agents, servants, employees or joint
`
`
`5.
`
`venturers of every other Defendant herein, and at all times mentioned herein were acting within
`
`the scope and course of said agency, employment, or joint venture, with knowledge and
`
`permission and consent of all other named Defendants.
`
`
`6.
`
`
`7.
`
`That at all times mentioned herein Plaintiff was a pedestrian.
`
`That at all times mentioned herein Defendant TOMESCO was driving a 2004 Ford
`
`Econoline (hereinafter “the Vehicle”).
`
`8.
`
`That on July 9, 2020, in Clark County, Nevada Defendant TOMESCO negligently
`
`operated the Vehicle, striking Plaintiff while he walked in a designated crosswalk.
`
`9.
`
`That on July 9, 2020, at the time of the subject collision, Defendant TOMESCO was a in
`
`the course of his employment with Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC.
`
`10.
`
`That on July 9, 2020, at the time of the subject collision, Defendant TOMESCO, was
`
`operating a vehicle owned by Defendant, SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC.
`
`11.
`
`That on July 9, 2020, at the time of the subject collision, Defendant TOMESCO was
`
`operating the subject vehicle with the permission of the owner, Defendant SECOND OPINION
`
`PLUMBING, LLC.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff sustained
`
`
`12.
`
`serious injuries, all or some of which condition may be permanent and disabling, and all to
`
`
`That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff received
`
`Plaintiff’s damage in a sum in excess of $15,000.00.
`
`
`13.
`
`medical and other treatment for the aforementioned injuries, and that said services, care, and
`
`treatment are continuing and shall continue in the future, all to the damage of Plaintiff.
`
`14.
`
`
`That as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff has been
`
`
`required to, and has limited occupational and recreational activities, which have caused and
`
`shall continue to cause Plaintiff loss of earning capacity, lost wages, physical impairment,
`
`mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life, in a presently unascertainable amount.
`
`15.
`
`
`That as a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of all
`
`Defendants, Plaintiff has been required to engage the services of an attorney, incurring
`
`
`attorney’s fees and costs to bring this action.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE
`(Against Defendant TOMESCO)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Complaint as though said
`
`16.
`
`paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant TOMESCO owed Plaintiff a duty of care to operate the Vehicle in a
`
`reasonable and safe manner.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant TOMESCO breached that duty of care by striking Plaintiff in the crosswalk.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant TOMESCO, Plaintiff
`
`has been damaged in an amount in excess of $15,000.00.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE PER SE
`(Against Defendant TOMESCO)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Complaint as though said
`
`
`20.
`
`paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
`
`21.
`
`
`The acts of Defendant TOMESCO, as described herein, violated the traffic laws of the
`
`
`State of Nevada and Clark County, constituting negligence per se.
`
`22. When official traffic-control devices are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a
`
`vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be so to yield, to a
`
`pedestrian crossing the highway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the
`
`highway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which the vehicle is turning, or when the
`
`
`
`pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the highway as to be in danger.
`
`NRS 484B.283(1)(a).
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff was among the class of individuals that NRS 484B.283(1)(a) was designed to
`
`protect.
`
`24. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant TOMESCO, Plaintiff
`
`has been damaged in an amount in excess of $15,000.00.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: GROSS NEGLIGENCE
`(Against Defendant TOMESCO)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 24 of the Complaint as though said
`
`25.
`
`paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
`
`26. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant TOMESCO owed a duty of care to Plaintiff
`
`and breached that duty by failing to operate his vehicle in a safe and proper manner.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant TOMESCO’s carelessness, gross negligence and failure to operate his vehicle
`
`in a safe and proper manner proximately caused damages to Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant TOMESCO’s carelessness, and gross
`
`
`28.
`
`negligence, Plaintiff suffered damages, including special damages and general damages in the
`
`
`Defendant TOMESCO’s conduct was a product of his deliberate indifference to the duty
`
`excess of this Court’s jurisdictional minimum.
`
`
`29.
`
`of care that he owed Plaintiff, which constituted an obvious and extremely dangerous risk of
`
`harm to Plaintiff and all pedestrians.
`
`30. Defendant TOMESCO’S outrageous and unconscionable conduct warrants an award of
`
`
`
`exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to NRS 42.005, in an amount appropriate to punish
`
`and make an example of Defendant, and to deter similar conduct in the future.
`
`31.
`
`him in the prosecution of this action, and he is therefore entitled to an award of a reasonable
`
`
` The actions of Defendant TOMESCO has forced Plaintiff to retain counsel to represent
`
`amount as attorney fees and costs of suit.
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VICARIOUS LIABILITY)
`(Against Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 31 of the Complaint as though said
`
`paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
`
`33. At all times relevant, Defendant TOMESCO, was acting within the course and scope of
`
`employment with Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC.
`
`34. As such, Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC., is legally responsible
`
`(vicariously liable) for the negligent conduct of Defendant TOMESCO as alleged herein.
`
`35. As alleged herein, Defendant TOMESCO operated the Vehicle in such a
`
`negligent, reckless and careless manner so as to cause it to collide with Plaintiff, a pedestrian
`
`who was legally crossing the street in the designated crosswalk.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36. As a proximate cause of the negligence and gross negligence of Defendant TOMESCO,
`
`which is imputed to Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC., Plaintiff was injured
`
`
`and damaged in a manner as alleged herein in in excess of $15,000.00.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION,
`and/or RETENTION)
`(Against Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 of the Complaint as though said
`
`
`37.
`
`paragraphs were fully set forth herein.
`
`38. Upon information and belief, Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC hired,
`
`trained, supervised, and/or retained employees to conduct their day-to-day business operations.
`
`
`
`Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC hired employees to travel in company
`
`vehicles and perform plumbing services for the residents of Clark County, Nevada.
`
`39. Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC had a duty to hire competent
`
`employees, to properly train, properly supervise, and/or properly retain competent employees,
`
`agents, independent contractors and/or representatives.
`
`40. Upon information and belief, Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC
`
`breached the duty of care by improperly hiring, improperly training, improperly supervising,
`
`and/or improperly retaining incompetent employees, agents, independent contractors, and/or
`
`representatives.
`
`40. Upon
`
`information and belief, employees of Defendant SECOND OPINION
`
`PLUMBING, LLC are supposed to be trained to drive company vehicles in accordance with the
`
`traffic laws of the State of Nevada, and to avoid personal injury to pedestrians, yet Defendant
`
`TOMESCO failed to exercise even a slight degree of care when operating the Vehicle for
`
`Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`41. Upon information and belief, Defendant TOMESCO was not properly supervised by
`
`Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC to ensure his compliance with company
`
`
`policies regarding the safe operation of their vehicles.
`
`
`42. Upon information and belief, Defendant TOMESCO’S driving history was not properly
`
`checked to ensure that he would not be an unnecessary safety risk when Defendant SECOND
`
`OPINION PLUMBING, LLC dispatched him to conduct their business operations in Clark
`
`County, Nevada.
`
`
`
`43. As a direct and proximate or legal result of the aforesaid negligence and carelessness of
`
`Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC, Plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff thereby
`
`experienced great pain, and anxiety to his body and mind, sustaining injuries and damages in a
`
`manner as alleged herein in in excess of $15,000.00.
`
`
`44. As a further direct and proximate or legal result of the aforesaid negligence and
`
`
`carelessness of Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC, Plaintiff incurred damages,
`
`both general and special, including medical expenses as a result of the necessary treatment of
`
`his injuries, in a sum in a manner as alleged herein in in excess of $15,000.00.
`
`45. As a further direct and proximate or legal result of the aforementioned negligence and
`
`carelessness of Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC, Plaintiff was required to,
`
`and did, employ physicians, and other health care providers to examine, treat, and care for him
`
`and did incur medical and incidental expenses thereby. The exact amount of such expenses is
`
`unknown at this present time, but Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered special damages in a
`
`manner as alleged herein in in excess of $15,000.00.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`The actions of Defendant SECOND OPINION PLUMBING, LLC have forced Plaintiff
`
`
`46.
`
`to retain counsel to represent him in the prosecution of this action and are therefore entitled to
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff expressly reserving the right to amend this complaint prior to
`
`an award of a reasonable amount as attorney fees and costs of suit.
`
`
`
`
`or at the time of trial of this action, to insert those items of damage not yet fully ascertainable,
`
`pray judgment against all Defendants, and each of them, as follows:
`
`
`For general damages sustained by Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $15,000.00;
`
`For special damages sustained by Plaintiff in an amount in excess of $15,000.00;
`
`For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`For interest at the statutory rate; and
`
`For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`DATED THIS 31st day of August 2020.
`
`HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC
`
`
`
` /s/ Justin W. Wilson
`JUSTIN W. WILSON, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 14646
`HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC
`2630 S. Jones Blvd
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89146
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT “2”
`EXHIBIT “2”
`
`EXHIBIT “2”
`EXHIBIT “2”
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TB
`
`ALISON BRASIER, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 10522
`
`BETSY C. JEFFERIS-AGUILAR, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 12980
`
`HICKS & BRASIER, PLLC
`
`2630 S Jones Blvd.
`Las Vegas, NV 89146
`
`T: (702) 628-9888
`
`F: (702) 960-4118
`E: baguilar@lvattorneys.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`
`
`
`JARED MOSS, individually,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SEAN EDWARD TOMESCO,
`individually; SECOND OPINION
`PLUMBING, LLC., a domestic limited
`liability company; DOES I through X,
`inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS XI
`through XX, inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`CASE NO.: A-21-840372-C
`DEPT. NO.: 20
`
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF NO. 1
`REGARDING HIS UNRELATED
`SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT ON
`OCTOBER 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff JARED MOSS, by and through his attorneys of record of the law firm HICKS
`& BRASIER, PLLC, hereby submits Plaintiff’s Trial Brief No. 1 Regarding his Unrelated
`Subsequent Collision on October 17, 2020 pursuant to EDCR 7.27.
`This Trial Brief is made and based upon the attached memorandum of points and
`authorities, all papers and pleadings on file herein and such oral argument as the court may
`allow at hearing on this matter.
`///
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case Number: A-21-840372-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`3/17/2024 4:19 PM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`I.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`
`A. Subject Collision.
`On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff Jared Moss was struck down in a designated cross walk by a
`
`van owned by Defendant Second Opinion and driven by Defendant employee Tomesco.
`
`Defendant’s front right bumper threw Jared backwards almost two travel lanes where he
`
`eventually hit ground near the sidewalk. As a result of this severe impact, Jared sought
`
`treatment later that day for injuries to his low back, buttocks, and right knee. Jared has
`
`approximately $164,864.00 in past medical expenses, including one set of bilateral lumbar
`
`facet injections, a bilateral lumbar medial branch block, and three lumbar medal branch
`
`radiofrequency ablations.
`
`Despite three and a half years of medical treatment and painful interventional medicine,
`
`Jared suffers from ongoing pain and will require future medical care. Due to the severity of
`
`Jared’s condition, he is a candidate for repeat lumbar radiofrequency ablations, however, once
`those lose effectiveness, he is a candidate for a two level lumbar fusion surgery. Currently,
`Jared’s life care plan is estimated at $1,539,710.00.
`B. Subsequent Collision.
`On October 17, 2020, Jared was unfortunately involved in another auto versus
`pedestrian accident where he was hit as he was walking down the sidewalk. Importantly, there
`is no evidence that Jared injured his low back in any way as a result — or that this
`subsequent accident exacerbated or aggravated any of the injuries he sustained in the subject
`collision.
`Jared was admitted to Sunrise Hospital for two days after this October 2020
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
