Virgin Valley Water Dist. v. Dist. Ct. (Lonetti, Jr.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Virgin Valley Water Dist. v. Dist. Ct. (Lonetti, Jr.)

DecidedSeptember 20, 2013

Docket63138

StatusUnpublished

This text of Virgin Valley Water Dist. v. Dist. Ct. (Lonetti, Jr.) (Virgin Valley Water Dist. v. Dist. Ct. (Lonetti, Jr.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Virgin Valley Water Dist. v. Dist. Ct. (Lonetti, Jr.), (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner Virgin Valley Water District (VVWD) seeks to disqualify attorney Dominic Gentile and his law firm Gordon Silver from representing real party in interest John Lonetti, Jr. in the underlying case. Gentile met and communicated with George Benesch, VVWD's former general counsel, prior to the time that VVWD amended its complaint to add Lonetti as a defendant in the underlying case. VVWD alleges that Benesch conveyed to Gentile confidential information relevant to the underlying case, while Lonetti characterizes the meeting as a primer for Gentile in water law. In denying VVWD's motion to disqualify, the district court found that Benesch did not disclose confidential information to Gentile. At oral argument, Benesch and Gentile testified that the meeting pertained to general principles of water law and general information about VVWD, and the district court found Benesch's and Gentile's testimony credible. The district court also found that a reasonable probability of disclosure did not exist. Substantial evidence supports the district court's findings. Weddell v. H20, Inc., 128 Nev. „ 271 P.3d 743, 748 (2012). In particular, Gentile's notes of the meeting reflect a general discussion of water law, and the documents Benesch provided to Gentile were publicly available documents. Given these facts, any public suspicion does not outweigh the societal interests in Gentile's and Gordon Silver's continued participation in this case. Cronin v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 105 Nev. 635, 640-41, 781 P.2d 1150, 1153 (1989), disapproved of on other grounds by Nev. Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 44, 54 n.26, 152 P.3d 737, 743 n.26 (2007); see also Brown v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 1200, 1205-06, 14 P.3d 1266, 1270 (2000)

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (plurality opinion). Accordingly, because VVWD has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ relief is warranted, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

Douglas

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Bingham Snow & Caldwell Gordon Silver Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Petitioner Virgin Valley Water District (VVWD) seeks to disqualify attorney Dominic Gentile and his law firm Gordon Silver from representing real party in interest John Lonetti, Jr. in the underlying case. Gentile met and communicated with George Benesch, VVWD's former general counsel, prior to the time that VVWD amended its complaint to add Lonetti as a defendant in the underlying case. VVWD alleges that Benesch conveyed to Gentile confidential information relevant to the underlying case, while Lonetti characterizes the meeting as a primer for Gentile in water law. In denying VVWD's motion to disqualify, the district court found that Benesch did not disclose confidential information to Gentile. At oral argument, Benesch and Gentile testified that the meeting pertained to general principles of water law and general information about VVWD, and the district court found Benesch's and Gentile's testimony credible. The district court also found that a reasonable probability of disclosure did not exist. Substantial evidence supports the district court's findings. Weddell v. H20, Inc., 128 Nev. „ 271 P.3d 743, 748 (2012). In particular, Gentile's notes of the meeting reflect a general discussion of water law, and the documents Benesch provided to Gentile were publicly available documents. Given these facts, any public suspicion does not outweigh the societal interests in Gentile's and Gordon Silver's continued participation in this case. Cronin v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 105 Nev. 635, 640-41, 781 P.2d 1150, 1153 (1989), disapproved of on other grounds by Nev. Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 44, 54 n.26, 152 P.3d 737, 743 n.26 (2007); see also Brown v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 1200, 1205-06, 14 P.3d 1266, 1270 (2000)