Nevada Personal Injury Interpleader Complaint After Settlement

Posted by: on Thu, Jan 07, 2016

Share this post

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and as and for its Amended Complaint in Interpleader against Defendants, alleges as follows:
1. At all times relevant to this action, Interpleader Plaintiff is a Nevada Professional Corporation doing business in Clark County, Nevada.
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant JONATHAN DUDLEY, an individual (hereinafter “Jonathan”) was and is a resident of the City of Las Vegas, County of Clark, State of Nevada.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant CITY OF LAS VEGAS FIRE & RESCUE was and is a Nevada entity, doing business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
4. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant CENTENNIAL MEDICAL GROUP was and is a Nevada limited liability partnership, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada, and authorized to do and doing business in Clark County, Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant CENTENNIAL SURGERY CENTER was and is a Nevada entity, doing business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
6. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant RAXO DRUGS INC. was and is a domestic corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada, and authorized to do and doing business in Clark County, Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant LAS VEGAS RADIOLOGY, LLC was and is a Nevada limited liability company, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada, and authorized to do and doing business in Clark County, Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant BLANCHARD YAMANE PLLC was and is a professional limited liability company, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada, and authorized to do and doing business in Clark County, Nevada as NEVADA REHABILITATION CENTERS, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
9. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant PBS ANESTHESIA, LLC was and still is a Nevada limited liability company, doing business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant GAMBOA LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, dba VEGAS VALLEY CHIROPRACTIC was and still is a Nevada entity, doing business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant SUMMIT ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS INC. was and still is a Nevada entity,
doing business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and provided medical care and treatment to Defendant Jonathan, all or part of which was on a lien basis.
12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that, at all times mentioned herein, Defendant GLOBAL FINANCIAL CREDIT LLC was and still is a Delaware limited liability company, doing business in the County of Clark, State of Nevada.
13. The Defendants named above in Paragraphs 3 through 12, inclusive, are hereinafter referred to as the “Interpleader Defendants”.
14. Pursuant to NRCP 10(a) and Nufrenberger Hercules-Werke GMBH v. Virostek, 107 Nev. 873, 822 P.2d 1100 (1991), the identity of resident and non-resident defendants designated as DOES I through X, inclusive, and ROE CORPORATION I through X, inclusive, are unknown to Interpleader Plaintiff at the present time; however, it is alleged and believed these defendants were involved in acts making up the basis for the Interpleader in that they provided medical services to the Interpleader. As the specific identities of these parties are revealed through the course of discovery, the DOE and ROE appellations will be replaced to identify these parties by their true names and capacities.
15. At all times relevant hereto, particularly on or about July 28, 2015, Defendant Jonathan was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the roadways of Clark County, Nevada, specifically East Bonanza Road and Las Vegas Boulevard North, which was caused by tortfeasor, Araceli Diaz.
16. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Jonathan sustained substantial personal injuries due to the accident.
17. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Jonathan entered into a contingency retainer agreement with Plaintiff, which provided that Plaintiff would be entitled to 33 1/3% of any award and/or settlement received on Defendant Jonathan’s behalf against Araceli Diaz. See Exhibit “1″ attached hereto.
18. That pursuant to the retainer agreement, Defendant Jonathan also agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for any and all costs incurred by Plaintiff in pursuit of Defendant Jonathan’s claim for personal injuries and damages against Araceli Diaz.
19. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Jonathan, represented by Plaintiff, submitted a claim against Araceli Diaz’s insurance company and achieved a settlement in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
20. At all times relevant hereto, pursuant to the retainer agreement between Interpleader Plaintiff and Defendant Dudley, Interpleader Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), which is 33 1/3% of the settlement proceeds recovered.
21. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the costs expended in the amount of Four Hundred and Eighteen Dollars and Eight Cents ($418.08), excluding any future legal costs.
22. Defendant Jonathan’s damages are in excess of the settlement received from the tortfeasor/adverse Defendant.
23. Defendant Jonathan borrowed $725.00 from Defendant Global Financial Credit as a cash advance on a July 22, 2015 accident. Global Financial retained $225 as a Minimum Return Fee and Defendant Jonathan received the remaining $500 as an advance. No recovery was made from the July 22, 2015 accident, no insurance was available, and the matter was eventually dropped. Defendant Global Financial has been named as a Defendant herein inasmuch as the Cash Advance Agreement between Global Financial and Defendant Jonathan is ambiguous and does not specify the date of the accident upon which the cash advance was made. The amount which is claimed due to Global Financial is $856. Since this case relates to a second lawsuit, unrelated to the July 22, 2015 accident, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Global Financial is not entitled to any of the interpled funds.
24. The remaining Interpleader Defendants are all persons or business entities who claim entitlement to the settlement as a result of the above alleged accident and who have asserted claims against the amount interpled.
25. The combined claims made by all of the Interpleader Defendants exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000).
26. The Interpleader Plaintiff is owed attorneys’ fees and costs as a result of the above described claim and these proceedings and is entitled to its fees and costs prior to distribution to any of the Interpleader Defendants under Michel v. Eighth Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 117 Nev. 145, 17 P.3d 1003 (Nev. 2001).
27. The Interpleader Plaintiff is not in a position to determine the fair distribution of any available proceeds to the remainder Interpleader Defendants after the distribution to the Interpleader Plaintiff. As such, it has become necessary to file this Complaint in Interpleader.
28. Plaintiff has brought this Complaint in Interpleader in good faith and without collusion with any parties hereto.
29. Pursuant to NRCP 22 and the case law interpreting the same, Plaintiff is entitled to interplead all remaining money with the Court and/or its designee, to determine the rights of the remaining claimants to the interpled funds.
30. Plaintiff is willing to deposit the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($15,000.00) by order of the Court to hold in trust until such time as the rights of the claimants to those funds is determined by the Court.
31. Because this is a matter seeking equitable relief, it should be exempted from arbitration pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 3(a).
WHEREFORE, Interpleader Plaintiff, who reserves the right to amend this Complaint in Interpleader at the time of the hearing of the action herein to include all Defendants not yet ascertained, prays as follows:
1. That each of the Defendants are restrained from instituting any action against the Interpleader Plaintiff or any other party hereto for the recovery of any claim arising out of the above described accident.
2. That Defendants be required to interplead and settle between themselves and the court each of their respective rights, if any, to the insurance proceeds available.
3. That Interpleader Plaintiff is discharged from all liability arising out of the above described accident, except to the extent the court orders.
4. That pursuant to its contingency fee agreement with Defendant Jonathan, the Interpleader Plaintiff receive its attorneys’ fees and costs from the insurance proceeds before any other distribution to any Defendant for the Interpleader Plaintiff’s prosecution of the claim and the filing of this action.
5. That this matter should be exempted from arbitration pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 3(a).
6. For any and all further relief necessary to protect the Plaintiff from any claim to the money obtained in the settlement on behalf of Defendant Jonathan.
7. That the court determine the amount of $725 which Defendant Jonathan borrowed from Defendant Global Financial Credit was not a cash advance as it related to the accident described herein which occurred on July 28, 2015, but an advance relating to the accident which occurred on July 22, 2015, for which Defendant Jonathan received no recovery as there was no insurance and the matter was dropped.
8. That the court determine that Defendant Global Financial is not entitled to any of the interpled funds herein.
/ / /
[continued on Page 8] 9. For any other order or declaration to carry out the purpose of NRCP 22 and the cases interpreting same to protect Plaintiff from any and all liability which may arise from the Defendants, and each of their claims to proceeds obtained on behalf of Defendant Jonathan.
DATED this _____ day of January, 2016.
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK
& ALBRIGHT

By___________________________________
G. MARK ALBRIGHT, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 001394
WILLIAM H. STODDARD, JR., ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 008679
801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106/
Attorneys for Plaintiff

About the Authors: The law firm of Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright is an A-V Rated Nevada-based full-service law firm having attorneys licensed in Nevada, California and Utah. Our firm’s practice includes a strong emphasis on personal injury accidents. Call us at 702-384-7111.

Note: This article, and any other information you obtain at this website, is not offered as legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as such, nor is it a solicitation for legal services. Only a licensed attorney can advise you with respect to your specific legal needs. We welcome your contacting our firm to discuss such representation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.