District Court Case No: A-20-820905-C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronically Filed
`Apr 22 2025 01:17 PM
`Elizabeth A. Brown
`Clerk of Supreme Court
`IN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE
`STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR
`THE COUNTY OF CLARK
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amended
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CARMEN DAVIS,
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNESSA DUNTON,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF APPEAL PACKET
`COVER SHEET
`
`Docket 90508 Document 2025-17999
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Paul D. Powell (7488)
`Tom W. Stewart (14280)
`The Powell Law Firm
`8918 Spanish Ridge Avenue, Suite 100
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`paul@tplf.com | tom@tplf.com
`Phone 702.728.5500 | Fax 702.728.5501
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Eighth Judicial District Court
`Clark County, Nevada
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Carmen Davis, individually,
`
`
`
`
`
`Jennessa Dunton, individually,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. A-20-820905-C
`
`
`Dept. No. 4
`
`Amended Notice of Appeal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Carmen Davis appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court from:
`
`1.
`
`The June 2, 2024 judgment upon jury verdict, notice of entry of which was entered June
`
`2, 2024 and is attached as Exhibit 1;
`
`2.
`
`The March 28, 2025 order granting in part and denying in part Dunton’s motion for
`
`attorney fees and costs and Davis’s motion to retax, notice of entry of which was entered March 28,
`
`2025 and is attached as Exhibit 2; and
`
`3.
`
`All interlocutory orders made appealable by the entry of a final, appealable order.
`
`Dated April 18, 2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Powell Law Firm
`
`/s/ Tom W. Stewart
`Paul D. Powell (7488)
`Tom W. Stewart (14280)
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`Pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b), I certify that on April 18, 2025, I served this
`
`document via Odyssey.
`
`/s/ Tom W. Stewart
`Tom W. Stewart
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Number: A-20-820905-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`4/18/2025 11:44 AM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`NEO
`GEORGE M. RANALLI, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 5748
`GREGORY S. CARUSO, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 13086
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`2340 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite #100
`Henderson, Nevada 89052
`Telephone: (702) 477-7774
`Facsimile: (702) 477-7778
`ranalliservice@ranallilawyers.com
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`JENNESSA DUNTON
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`CARMEN DAVIS, individually,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`)
`)
`) CASE NO.: A-20-820905-C
`) DEPT. NO.: IV
`)
`)
`)
`JENNESSA DUNTON, individually;
`DOES I-X, and ROE CORPORATIONS )
` I-X, Inclusive,
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`Defendants.
`_________________________________ __)
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UPON JURY VERDICT
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Judgment Upon Jury Verdict was entered in the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`TELEPHONE: (702) 477-7774 FAX: (702) 477-7778
`
`HENDERSON, NEVADA 89052
`
`2340 WEST HORIZON RIDGE PARKWAY, SUITE 100
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`
`19
`
`///
`
`20
`
`21
`
`///
`
`22
`
`23
`
`///
`
`24
`
`25
`
`1
`
`Case Number: A-20-820905-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`6/2/2024 10:38 AM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`above-entitled action on the May 29, 2024, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED this 2nd day of June, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`
`/s/ Gregory C. Caruso
`_________________________
`GEORGE M. RANALLI, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 5748
`GREGORY S. CARUSO, ESQ.
`Nevada Bar No. 13086
`2340 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway,
`Suite #100
`Henderson, Nevada 89052
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`JENNESSA DUNTON
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TELEPHONE: (702) 477-7774 FAX: (702) 477-7778
`
`HENDERSON, NEVADA 89052
`
`2340 WEST HORIZON RIDGE PARKWAY, SUITE 100
`
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b), I hereby certify that I am an employee
`
`of RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC, and that on the 2nd day of June, 2024,
`
`4
`
`I caused the foregoing NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UPON JURY VERDICT to
`
`5
`
`be served as follows:
`
`6
`
`[ ] by placing a true and correct copy of the same to be deposited for mailing in the US Mail at
`
`7
`
`Henderson, Nevada, enclosed in a sealed envelope upon which first class postage was fully
`
`8
`
`prepaid; and/or
`
`9
`
`[ ]
`
`pursuant to EDCR 7.26, by sending it via facsimile (w/out attachments); and/or
`
`10
`
`[ ]
`
`by hand delivery to the parties listed below; and/or
`
`11
`
`[X]
`
`pursuant to N.E.F.C.R. Rule 9 and Administrative Order 14-2, by sending it via
`
`12
`
`electronic service:
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Paul D. Powell, Esq.
`Tom W. Stewart, Esq.
`Traysen N. Turner, Esq.
`THE POWELL LAW FIRM
`8918 Spanish Ridge Avenue, Suite 100
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CARMEN DAVIS
`VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE
`
`/s/ Jill Skylar
`_________________________________________
`An Employee of
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`
`3
`
`TELEPHONE: (702) 477-7774 FAX: (702) 477-7778
`
`HENDERSON, NEVADA 89052
`
`2340 WEST HORIZON RIDGE PARKWAY, SUITE 100
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT “A”
`EXHIBIT “A”
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`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
`
`2024.
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment is entered in
`
`favor of Plaintiff Carmen Davis and against defendant Jennessa Dunton in the total
`amount of $10,000,1 calculated as follows, with post-judgment interest to accrue pursuant
`to statute:
`
`Carmen’s past medical expenses:
`
`$5,000.00
`
`Carmen’s past pain and suffering:
`
`
`
`$5,000.00
`
`___________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This judgment does not include any amounts for prejudgment interest. Prejudgment
`interest will be determined during the parties’ post-trial motion practice, including any
`motions for attorney fees, costs, and interest.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. A-20-820905-C
`
`
`Dept. No. 4
`JUDGMENT UPON JURY VERDICT
`
`
`
`CARMEN DAVIS, individually,
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNESSA DUNTON, individually, et al,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`This case came before the Court for a jury trial from April 29, 2024 to May 13,
`
`Electronically Filed
`05/29/2024 10:22 AM
`
`Statistically closed: USJR - CV - Jury Trial - Verdict Reached (USVRJ)
`
`

`

`CSERV
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`Carmen Davis, Plaintiff(s)
`
`CASE NO: A-20-820905-C
`
`vs.
`
`DEPT. NO. Department 4
`
`Jennessa Dunton, Defendant(s)
`
`AUTOMATED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This automated certificate of service was generated by the Eighth Judicial District
`Court. The foregoing Judgment was served via the court’s electronic eFile system to all
`recipients registered for e-Service on the above entitled case as listed below:
`
`Service Date: 5/29/2024
`
`Dana Marcolongo
`
`George Ranalli
`
`Tom Stewart
`
`Jared Powell
`
`Paul Powell
`
`Lillie Anderson
`
`Michelle Temoche
`
`Traysen Turner
`
`Tiffany Plumer
`
`Lani Domenico
`
`Kimberly Beal
`
`dana@tplf.com
`
`ranalliservice@ranallilawyers.com
`
`tstewart@tplf.com
`
`jared@tplf.com
`
`paul@tplf.com
`
`landerson@ranallilawyers.com
`
`mtemoche@tplf.com
`
`tturner@tplf.com
`
`tplumer@tplf.com
`
`ldomenico@tplf.com
`
`kbeal@ranallilawyers.com
`
`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
`
`

`

`Mikayla Fritchley
`
`Athena Velasquez
`
`Niccole Lionetti
`
`Athena Velasquez
`
`Kimberly Beal
`
`Mikayla Fritchley
`
`Niccole Lionetti
`
`Fernanda Robles
`
`Luzandra Aguilar
`
`mfritchley@ranallilawyers.com
`
`avelasquez@ranallilawyers.com
`
`nlionetti@ranallilawyers.com
`
`avelasquez@ranallilawyers.com
`
`kbeal@ranallilawyers.com
`
`mfritchley@ranallilawyers.com
`
`nlionetti@ranallilawyers.com
`
`frobles@tplf.com
`
`laguilar@tplf.com
`
`Francesca Hovagimian
`
`fhovagimian@tplf.com
`
`Rachel Gibbons
`
`Elizabeth Turner
`
`Danielle Beckham
`
`Zoe Valdes
`
`justin maynes
`
`rgibbons@tplf.com
`
`eturner@tplf.com
`
`dbeckham@tplf.com
`
`Zvaldes@tplf.com
`
`jmaynes@tplf.com
`
`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
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`NEOJ
`Paul D. Powell (7488)
`Tom W. Stewart (14280)
`THE POWELL LAW FIRM
`8918 Spanish Ridge Avenue, Suite 100
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`paul@tplf.com | tom@tplf.com
`Phone 702.728.5500 | Fax 702.728.5501
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`CARMEN DAVIS, individually,
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNESSA DUNTON, individually,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. A-20-820905-C
`
`
`Dept. No. 4
`
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
`GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
`PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS AND
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX
`
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s
`
`Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs and Plaintiff’s Motion to Retax was entered in the above-entitled
`
`matter on March 28, 2025. A true correct copy of the order is attached hereto.
`
`Dated March 28, 2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE POWELL LAW FIRM
`
`
`
`/s/ Tom W. Stewart
`Paul D. Powell (7488)
`Tom W. Stewart (14280)
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` - 1 -
`
`Case Number: A-20-820905-C
`
`Electronically Filed
`
`3/28/2025 4:22 PM
`
`Steven D. Grierson
`
`CLERK OF THE COURT
`
`

`

`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 5 (b), I hereby certify that on March 28, 2025,
`
`the foregoing NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX
`
`was served via electronic services to the following counsel of record:
`
`
`
`George M. Ranalli (5748)
`Gregory S. Caruso (13086)
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`2340 W. Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 100
`Henderson, Nevada 89052
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`/s/ Chanel Fox
`An Employee of THE POWELL LAW FIRM
`
`
`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
`
`
`
` - 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Paul D. Powell (7488)
`Tom W. Stewart (14280)
`THE POWELL LAW FIRM
`8918 Spanish Ridge Avenue, Suite 100
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89148
`paul@tplf.com | tom@tplf.com
`Phone 702.728.5500 | Fax 702.728.5501
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CARMEN DAVIS, individually,
`
`
`
`
`
`JENNESSA DUNTON, individually,
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. A-20-820905-C
`
`
`Dept. No. 4
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
`IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS AND
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETAX
`
`
`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
`
`On June 2, 2024, defendant Jennessa Dunton filed her verified memorandum of costs.1 On June
`
`4, 2024, Dunton filed her Supplement to Exhibit C To Defendant’s Memorandum of Costs and
`
`Disbursements.2 On June 5, 2024, plaintiff Carmen Davis filed her motion to retax.3 On June 7, 2024,
`
`Dunton moved for her attorney fees and costs under NRCP 68 and NRS 18.020.4 On June 28, 2024,
`
`Davis opposed the attorney-fee motion.5 On August 8, 2024, Davis replied in support of her attorney-fee
`
`motion.6 On September 15, 2024, Davis replied in support of her motion to retax.7
`
`
`1 Doc. No. 143. Dunton also filed a supplement to the memorandum of costs. See Doc. No. 144.
`
`2 Doc. No 144.
`
`3 Doc. No. 145.
`
`4 Doc. No. 148. Dunton also filed an appendix and declaration in support of the motion. See Doc. Nos.
`149, 150.
`
`5 Doc. No. 166.
`
`6 Doc. No. 185.
`
`7 Doc. No. 188.
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronically Filed
`03/28/2025 4:04 PM
`
`Case Number: A-20-820905-C
`
`ELECTRONICALLY SERVED
`
`3/28/2025 4:05 PM
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`On September 23, 2024, the motions came before the Court.8 After reviewing the papers and
`
`considering the arguments of counsel, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motions. In
`
`doing so, the Court FINDS, CONCLUDES, and ORDERS as follows:
`
`On January 21, 2020, Dunton rear-ended Davis.
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`On October 22, 2020, Dunton served an offer of judgment for $100,000.
`
`At the time of the October 22, 2020 offer of judgment, Plaintiff had alleged approximately
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`$24,926.53 in past medical expenses.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`On February 24, 2023, Dunton served an offer of judgment for $450,000.
`
`At the time of the February 24, 2023 offer of judgment, Plaintiff had alleged approximately
`
`$445,743.02 in past medical expenses.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`On April 4, 2024, Dunton served an offer of judgment for $650,000.
`
`At the time of the April 4, 2024 offer, Davis’s claimed past medical damages totaled
`
`$445,743.02, and her claimed future damages totaled between $381,011.00 to $462,313.00; she also
`
`claimed between $3,636,269 to $5,802,019 in loss of enjoyment of life based on lower and upper
`
`impairment ratings, respectively, $2,223,037 loss of relationship to James Davis, and $1,316,475 loss of
`
`household/family services at the time, based upon her 25th supplemental NRCP 16.1 disclosure.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Between April 29, 2024 and May 13, 2024, the jury trial took place.
`
`On May 13, 2024, the jury returned a verdict of $10,000.9
`
`On May 29, 2024, the judgment on the jury verdict was entered.10
`
`The Court finds that this case is not about prior accidents, and the jury’s verdict is not
`
`related to the prior accidents. This case is about what the jury heard from the Plaintiff’s own testimony,
`
`
`8 See Recorder’s Transcript of Pending Motions, Doc. No. 191, at 38–77.
`
`9 Verdict, Doc. No. 132.
`
`10 Judgment Upon the Jury Verdict, Doc. No. 141.
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`about Plaintiff’s pain pre-surgery, the activities that Plaintiff engaged in, and injuries that she may have
`
`sustained doing those activities, especially from her own testimony explaining that the jolt while jet
`
`skiing was the greatest pain that she had ever felt in her life, her pain diving, and her pain while boating
`
`generally, and that the jet skiing incident increased her pain after the subject accident but before her
`
`surgery. That is the reason why the jury did not relate the surgery to the subject motor vehicle accident.
`
`The jury related Davis’s pain to the jet skiing incident. The Court analyzes the motions looking through
`
`this lens.
`
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`1.
`
`If a party “rejects an offer and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, . . . the offeree
`
`must pay the offeror’s post-offer costs and expenses.”11
`
`2.
`
`In determining whether to award attorney fees and costs based upon a rejected offer of
`
`judgment, the Court must evaluate the following factors:
`
`(1) whether the plaintiff’s claim was brought in good
`faith; (2) whether the defendant’s offer of judgment was
`reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount;
`(3) whether the plaintiff’s decision to reject the offer and
`proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and
`(4) whether the fees sought by the offeror are reasonable and
`justified in amount.12
`
`3.
`
`The district court retains discretion to weigh each factor because no one factor is
`
`determinative.13
`
`4.
`
`Additionally, to be awarded costs, a party must “demonstrate how such [claimed costs]
`
`were necessary to and incurred in the present action.”14 This requires the cost-seeking party to produce
`
`evidence “to show why the [] costs were reasonable or necessary.”
`
`
`11 NRCP 68(f)(1)(B).
`
`
`
`12 Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 588–89, 668 P.2d 267, 274 (1983).
`
`13 Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 252 n.16, 955 P.2d 661, 673 n.16 (1998).
`
`14 See Bobby Berosini, Ltd. v. PETA, 114 Nev. 1348, 1352, 971 P.2d 383, 386 (1998).
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`5.
`
`Davis’s claims were brought in good faith. The Court finds that Davis’s claims were
`
`brought in good faith. When she was rear-ended, the jury did find that she sustained some injuries from
`
`that collision, but not all of the treatment that she related to this particular collision. Davis said the surgery
`
`was related to the motor vehicle collision and Dunton disagreed. Ultimately, the jury agreed with Dunton.
`
`But, Davis had a legal right to bring her claim, and doing so here was not in bad faith.15 Therefore, this
`
`factor weighs in Davis’s favor.
`
`6.
`
`Dunton’s offers of judgments were reasonable and in good faith in timing and
`
`amount. The Court finds that Dunton’s three offers of judgment were reasonable and in good faith in
`
`timing in amount. Therefore, this factor weighs in Dunton’s favor.
`
`7.
`
`Davis’s rejection of the offers of judgment was not grossly unreasonable or in bad
`
`faith. The Court finds that Carmen’s rejection of the offers of judgment was not unreasonable or in bad
`
`faith. The Court looks at the offer at the time it was made, not through hindsight.16 Davis’s claimed future
`
`and past medical specials were over $1,000,000. So, although Dunton ultimately offered $650,000,
`
`Davis’s claimed treatment exceeded that amount, through that lens, the offer was insufficient. There was
`
`a difference of opinion as to whether the surgery to Plaintiff’s spine was related to the subject accident;
`
`thus, that weighs in Davis’s favor. Thus, the rejections were not in bad faith, so this factor weighs in
`
`Dunton’s favor.
`
`
`15 See, e.g., HSBC Bank USA Nat’l Ass’n as Tr. for Registered Holders of Ace Sec. Corp. , Home Equity
`Loan Tr., Series 2006-FM2, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates v. Suzannah R. Noonan IRA, LLC,
`2020 WL 5437726, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2020) (it is not “unreasonable to bring or defend a claim” that
`a party has a legal right to bring); Amezcua v. Jordan Transp., Inc., 2017 WL 1293994, at *2 (D. Nev.
`Mar. 31, 2017) (“The plaintiffs’ claims were litigated in good faith and their rejection of [] offers, while
`very risky, was not grossly unreasonable or in bad faith. The plaintiffs . . . believed they would prevail at
`trial because this was a simple rear-end accident case and” defendants admitted liability for the crash).
`
`16 Assurance Co. of Am. v. Nat’l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2012 WL 6626809, at *3 (D. Nev. Dec. 19,
`2012) (“In hindsight, plaintiffs should have accepted the offer. However, plaintiffs’ decision to reject the
`offer was not grossly unreasonable considering the amount sought by all the claims and plaintiffs’ decision
`to” proceed to trial); see also Amezcua, 2017 WL 1293994, at *2 (“While rejection of the offers was a
`poor choice in hindsight, that does not mean it was grossly unreasonable”).
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`8.
`
`Dunton’s sought fees are justified and reasonable in amount. After considering the
`
`Brunzell factors, Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of the defense.
`
`9.
`
`The Court finds that two of the Beattie factors weigh in favor of Davis and two weigh in
`
`favor of Dunton. When examining the Beattie factors in totality, however, the Court finds that because
`
`the claims were brought in good faith and her decision to reject was not in bad faith, those weigh in favor
`
`of Davis, so DUNTON’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS is DENIED AS TO ATTORNEY FEES.
`
`COSTS
`
`10.
`
`Clerk’s fees under NRS 18.005(1). Dunton is not entitled to court recording fees, but is
`
`entitled to the other clerks’ fees under NRS 18.005(1). Dunton sought $1,556.09 under NRS 18.005(1),
`
`including $1,250 for court recording fees. But, the court recorder is not a clerk, and the Court must
`
`“strictly construe statutes permitting recovery of costs.”17 Thus, the Court retaxes the court recording
`
`costs to zero. The Court awards a total of $306.09 under NRS 18.005(1).
`
`11.
`
`Reporter’s fees under NRS 18.005(2). Dunton is not entitled to EDCR 2.67 transcript
`
`costs, but is entitled to the other reporter’s fees under NRS 18.005(2). Dunton sought $4,391.29 under
`
`NRS 18.005(2), including $154 for the transcript of the parties’ EDCR 2.67 conference. There is no
`
`legal requirement to hire a court reporter to report an EDCR 2.67 conference and thus the transcript is
`
`not a taxable cost.18 Thus, the Court retaxes the EDCR 2.67 cost to zero. The Court awards a total of
`
`$4,237.29 under NRS 18.005(2).
`
`12.
`
`Juror fees under NRS 18.005(3). Dunton is entitled to juror fees under NRS 18.005(3).
`
`Dunton sought $270.34 in juror fees, which the Court awards in full under NRS 18.005(3).
`
`13.
`
`Expert witness fees under NRS 18.005(4) and (5). Dunton is not entitled to Brian
`
`Jones’s costs for another case, but is entitled to the other expert witness fees under NRS 18.005(4) and
`
`(5). Dunton sought $130,876.13 in expert witness fees under NRS 18.005(4) and (5), including
`
`
`17 A Cab, LLC, 137 Nev. at 819, 501 P.3d at 975.
`
`18 See N. Las Vegas Infrastructure Inv. & Constr., LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 5,
`525 P.3d 836, 842 (2023); Hyatt v. Franchise Tax Bd. of State of California, 2023 WL 4362562 (2023).
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`$5,118.75 for “digest/index medical records Alijah Banks”19 alongside charges for this case. Dunton
`
`subsequently waived the $5,118.75, so the Court retaxes it to zero. Other than that, the Court awards
`
`Dunton’s expert fees in the amount of $125,757.38 consistent with the following analysis under Frazier
`
`v. Drake, 131 Nev. 632, 651, 357 P.3d 365, 378 (Ct. App. 2015):
`
`a.
`
`Dr. Baird: Dr. Baird’s $2,800 deposition fee is below the $15,000 threshold, so
`
`the Court awards that in full.
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Rimoldi: Dr. Rimoldi’s claimed expert fees total $43,625, which is above
`
`$15,000 Frazier threshold. The Court finds that (1) Dr. Rimoldi, as a spine-surgery expert, was
`
`important to Dunton’s case given Davis’s claimed injuries; (2) Dr. Rimoldi’s opinion aided the jury in
`
`deciding whether Davis’s surgery was caused by the crash; (3) Dr. Rimoldi’s reports or testimony were
`
`not repetitive of other witnesses as this was the only spinal surgeon the defendant had; (4) Dr. Rimoldi’s
`
`work was extensive, consisting of at least ten reports or supplements; (5) Dr. Rimoldi independently
`
`reviewed the records and other reports; (6) Dr. Rimoldi spent substantial time reviewing records and
`
`reporting, preparing for trial, and providing trial testimony; (7) Dr. Rimoldi’s spine-surgery expertise
`
`supports his expert costs; (8) Dr. Rimoldi’s education and training supports his expert costs; (9) Dr.
`
`Rimoldi’s $14,000 full-day trial rate and hourly rate of $1,000 per hour are consistent with Davis’s
`
`experts; and (10) Dr. Rimoldi’s fees are consistent with other, similar experts in the field. Therefore, the
`
`Court awards Dr. Rimoldi’s expert costs in the amount of $43,625.
`
`c.
`
`Dr. Zaffarkhan: Dr. Zaffarkhan’s claimed expert fees total $50,757.38. The
`
`Court finds that (1) Dr. Zaffarkhan, as a pain-management physician and life-care planner, was
`
`important to Dunton’s case; (2) Dr. Zaffarkhan’s opinions were important because the jury considered
`
`the opinions regarding Davis’s pain-management and need for future care, and because Plaintiff’s
`
`expert, Dr. Oliveri, had a life care plan that needed to be reviewed; (3) Dr. Zaffarkhan’s reports or
`
`testimony were not repetitive of other witnesses; (4) Dr. Zaffarkhan’s work was extensive because he
`
`19 See Memo. at 99.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`had to review Davis’s voluminous records, prepare for trial, and provide trial testimony; (5) Dr.
`
`Zaffarkhan had to independently review the records; (6) Dr. Zaffarkhan spent a sufficient amount of
`
`time preparing reports and trial testimony, as well as testifying at trial, to justify his fee;
`
`(7) Dr. Zaffarkhan’s lifecare planning and pain-management expertise supports his expert
`
`cost; (8) Dr. Zaffarkhan’s education and training supports his expert costs; (9) Dr. Zaffarkhan’s hourly
`
`and full-day trial costs are similar to Davis’s pain-management expert, Dr. Rosler; and (10) Dr.
`
`Zaffarkhan’s expert fees are the same on other litigation matters. Therefore, the Court awards Dr.
`
`Zaffarkhan’s costs in the amount of $50,757.38.
`
`d.
`
`Mr. Jones: Mr. Jones’s claimed expert fees total $33,693.75. The Court finds that
`
`(1) Mr. Jones’s testimony was very important to the case as to whether or not the collision had enough
`
`force to cause Plaintiff’s surgery, and the jury found that Mr. Jones’s testimony was persuasive; (2) Mr.
`
`Jones’s opinions were pivotal in the jury’s determination of whether Davis’s surgery was related to the
`
`crash; (3) Mr. Jones’s reports or testimony were not repetitive of other witnesses; (4) Mr. Jones
`
`performed extensive work for the case, including reviewing documents and EDR data, inspecting the
`
`vehicles, preparing reports, and testifying; (5) Mr. Jones performed independent investigation and
`
`testing; (6) Mr. Jones spent a sufficient amount of time preparing reports and trial testimony, as well as
`
`testifying at trial, to justify his fee; (7) Mr. Jones’s expertise as an accident reconstructionist supports his
`
`expert cost; (8) Mr. Jones’s education and training supports his expert costs; (9) Mr. Jones’s $475 hourly
`
`fee is similar to Davis’s expert; and (10) Mr. Jones’s fees are similar to other experts in the field. Thus,
`
`having subtracted the waived and unrelated $5,118.75, the Court awards Mr. Jones’s expert fees in the
`
`amount of $28,575.
`
`14.
`
`Process server fees under NRS 18.005(7). Dunton is entitled to process server fees
`
`under NRS 18.005(7). Dunton sought $774 in process server fees, which the Court awards in full under
`
`NRS 18.005(7).
`
`15.
`
`Photocopies under NRS 18.005(12). Dunton is not entitled to photocopy costs under
`
`NRS 18.005(12) because she failed to provide “documentation substantiating the reason for each copy
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘is precisely what is required under Nevada law.’”20 Thus, although Dunton sought $3,214.29, the Court
`
`retaxes that amount to zero.
`
`16.
`
`Parking under NRS 18.005(15). Dunton is entitled to her parking under NRS
`
`18.005(15). Dunton sought $230, which the Court awards in full under NRS 18.005(15).
`
`17.
`
`Reasonable expenses under NRS 18.005(17). Dunton is not entitled to mediation costs,
`
`background checks, social media checks, or surveillance, but is entitled to her other claimed costs under
`
`NRS 18.005(17). Dunton sought $5,950.62 in reasonable expenses under NRS 18.005(17), which
`
`included $2,500 in mediation costs, $1,400 in surveillance, and $567.50 in background searches.
`
`Because there is no statutory authority that permits an award of mediation costs, surveillance, or
`
`background searches, the Court retaxes those amounts to zero. Thus, the Court awards $1,483.12 under
`
`NRS 18.005(17).
`
`18.
`
`Thus, in total, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dunton’s motion for
`
`attorney fees and costs and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Davis’s motion to retax and
`
`awards $136,272.51 in costs.
`
`
`20 Cadle Co. v. Woods & Erickson, LLP, 131 Nev. 114, 121, 345 P.3d 1049, 1054 (2015) (citing Village
`Builders 96, L.P. v. U.S. Labs., Inc., 121 Nev. 261, 277–78, 112 P.3d 1082, 1092–93 (2005)).
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dunton’s motion for attorney
`
`ORDER
`
`fees and costs and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Davis’s motion to retax. In doing so, the
`
`Court denies the motion as to attorney fees but awards costs in the amount of $136,272.51.
`
`__________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Submitted by:
`
`THE POWELL LAW FIRM
`
`/s/ Tom W. Stewart
`Tom W. Stewart (14280)
`
`
`
`Approved as to form and content:
`
`
`RANALLI ZANIEL FOWLER & MORAN, LLC
`
`
`/s/ Gregory S. Caruso
`George M. Ranalli (5748)
`Gregory S. Caruso (13086)
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Greg Caruso
`Tom Stewart
`George Ranalli; Mikayla Fritchley; Lillie Anderson
`RE: Davis adv. Dunton - Order denying motion for new trial, etc.
`Friday, March 28, 2025 3:15:46 PM
`Davis - Order Denying Motion for Attorney Fees tws edits.gsc.docx
`
`Tom, you may esign this version for me. I accepted your changes and deleted the comment.
`
`Best,
`
`Gregory S. Caruso, Esq.
`Trial Attorney
`Ranalli Zaniel Fowler & Moran, LLC
`2340 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy., Suite 100
`Henderson, NV 89052
`Cell: (702) 802-9717
`Office: (702) 477-7774 x342
`Facsimile: (702) 477-7778
`Ranalli_RZFM_Email (003)
`
`
`NOTICE: The above information is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains
`information belonging to Ranalli Zaniel Fowler & Moran, LLC which is confidential and may
`be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received
`this communication in error, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, distribution,
`use or taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail information is strictly
`prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately (1) notify the sender
`by reply e-mail; (2) call our office at (702) 477-7774 to inform the sender of the error; and (3)
`destroy all copies of the original message, including ones on your computer system and all
`drives.
`
`In accordance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise you that if this e-mail
`contains any tax advice, such tax advice was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot
`be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the
`taxpayer.
`
`
`From: Tom Stewart <TStewart@tplf.com>
`Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 2:26 PM
`To: Greg Caruso <gcaruso@ranallilawyers.com>
`Cc: George Ranalli <gmranalli@ranallilawyers.com>; Mikayla Fritchley
`
`

`

`CSERV
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
`
`Carmen Davis, Plaintiff(s)
`
`CASE NO: A-20-820905-C
`
`vs.
`
`DEPT. NO. Department 4
`
`Jennessa Dunton, Defendant(s)
`
`AUTOMATED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This automated certificate of service was generated by the Eighth Judicial District
`Court. The foregoing Order was served via the court’s electronic eFile system to all
`recipients registered for e-Service on the above entitled case as listed below:
`
`Service Date: 3/28/2025
`
`Dana Marcolongo
`
`George Ranalli
`
`Tom Stewart
`
`Jared Powell
`
`Paul Powell
`
`dana@tplf.com
`
`ranalliservice@ranallilawyers.com
`
`tstewart@tplf.com
`
`jared@tplf.com
`
`paul@tplf.com
`
`Gregory Caruso
`
`gcaruso@ranallilawyers.com
`
`Michelle Temoche
`
`mtemoche@tplf.com
`
`Lillie Anderson
`
`Traysen Turner
`
`Tiffany Plumer
`
`Kimberly Beal
`
`landerson@ranallilawyers.com
`
`tturner@tplf.com
`
`tplumer@tplf.com
`
`kbeal@ranallilawyers.com
`
`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
`
`

`

`Mikayla Fritchley
`
`Athena Velasquez
`
`Niccole Lionetti
`
`Athena Velasquez
`
`Kimberly Beal
`
`Mikayla Fritchley
`
`Niccole Lionetti
`
`Luzandra Aguilar
`
`Elizabeth Turner
`
`Amanda Lor
`
`Chanel Fox
`
`mfritchley@ranallilawyers.com
`
`avelasquez@ranallilawyers.com
`
`nlionetti@ranallilawyers.com
`
`avelasquez@ranallilawyers.com
`
`kbeal@ra