AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiff, Roland Lucero, and his company, R & L Straightline Tile, loaned $300,000 to a Las Vegas development company for a mixed-use real estate development project, based on the advice of Defendant, Richard Sutten, a licensed attorney. The loan was supposed to be secured and repaid with interest, but the document reviewed by Sutten did not, in fact, create any security interest, and he failed to notify Plaintiff of the risks involved. Following a catastrophic decline in the Las Vegas real estate market, the developer filed for bankruptcy, and Plaintiff was unable to recover any portion of the loan (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendant negligently failed to apprise them of the dangers of providing an unsecured $300,000 loan to a Las Vegas development company, which resulted in substantial financial loss when the real estate market collapsed and the developer filed for bankruptcy (paras 2, 4-5).
• Defendant: Contended that the collapse of the Las Vegas real estate market was an independent intervening cause that severed the connection between Defendant’s professional negligence and Plaintiff’s losses, thus absolving Defendant of liability (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in applying the doctrine of independent intervening cause to the facts of the case.
• Whether the decline in the Las Vegas real estate market constituted an independent intervening cause that severed the connection between Defendant's professional negligence and Plaintiff's losses.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment in favor of Defendant and remanded for consideration of damages in light of the opinion that the doctrine of independent intervening cause should not have been applied to these facts (para 2).

Reasons

• Per VANZI, J. (BUSTAMANTE, J., and HANISEE, J., concurring): The Court found that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of independent intervening cause, a defense not previously raised by Defendant, to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court held that the real estate market collapse did not sever the connection between Defendant’s professional negligence and Plaintiff’s damages. The Court reasoned that any harm which is foreseeable, as to which the actor has created or increased the recognizable risk, is always proximate, no matter how it is brought about, including through the intervention of forces such as market decline. The Court concluded that the district court should have determined whether Defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s loss and employed a standard comparative fault analysis instead of dismissing the case based on the doctrine of independent intervening cause (paras 6-14).