Misleading And Confusing

In an unpublished opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the denial of injunctive relief in an election matter that sought a ballot initiative to create a statutory cap of 20% on contingent fee matters

Respondents Uber Technologies, Inc.; Matt Griffin; John Griffin; Scott Gilles; Tia White; and Nevadans for Fair Recovery (collectively Uber) circulated an initiative that would create a statutory 20% cap on contingent attorney fees in civil actions…

Appellants Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and the Nevada Justice Association (collectively, USAS) challenged the Initiative in the district court on multiple grounds. The district court denied USAS’s request for an injunction. USAS appeals.

Reasoning

We conclude that the description of effect is misleading and confusing. The description of effect references existing statutory caps on contingent attorney fees in medical malpractice cases and cases where a private attorney represents the State of Nevada, both of which are higher than the 20% cap proposed by the Initiative. This creates an ambiguity in the extent to which the Initiative affects the existing higher caps mentioned in the description of effect. As currently drafted, the description leaves several material questions unanswered, such as whether the Initiative applies to civil medical malpractice cases and those where private attorneys represent the State of Nevada; and if so, whether the cap proposed by the Initiative replaces the existing higher caps. The description of effect thus leaves potential signatories with more questions about the Initiative’s effect than it answers.

The description of effect is also not straightforward and is deceptive and misleading regarding how the proposed cap is calculated. By referencing the existing cap on contingent attorney fees in medical malpractice cases, the description implies that the proposed cap will be calculated in the same way as the existing statutory cap in medical malpractice cases. But the Initiative uses a different definition of the term Specifically, the medical malpractice cap provides the “recovered.”

Conclusion

we conclude the district court erred in denying USAS’s request for injunctive relief on the ground that the description of effect for the Initiative is legally insufficient. We therefore

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

The case is

UBER SEXUAL ASSAULT SURVIVORS FOR LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND NEVADA JUSTICE ASSOCIATION, Appellants, vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; MATT GRIFFIN, JOHN GRIFFIN, SCOTT GILLES AND TIA WHITE, INDIVIDUALS; NEVADANS FOR FAIR RECOVERY, A REGISTERED NEVADA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE; AND FRANCISCO V. AGUILAR, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NEVADA SECRETARY OF STATE, Respondents.

(Mike Frisch)