Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date


Case Synopsis

On October 22, 1998, Edwards and two of his business partners filed their original complaint. In the complaint, Edwards and his partners alleged they were fraudulently induced into leasing restaurant space and brought claims against eleven defendants. While counsel initially represented Edwards and his partners, the lawyer was forced to withdraw, after being disbarred. In his amended complaint, Edwards, who was not authorized to practice law, named, on their behalf, both business partners. In fact, Edwards named one partner who wished to be removed. The district court ruled that the amended complaint would relate solely to Edwards and removed the business partners from the caption. The court later determined that the earlier complaint remained effective as to the business partners. In March 2000, one of the defendants filed for federal bankruptcy protection. Thus, the automatic bankruptcy stay was commenced. One year later, in April 2001, the federal bankruptcy court entered an order granting the parties in Edwards’ action relief from the bankruptcy stay. In June 2001, even though the automatic stay had by that time been lifted, the district court acknowledged the stay and ordered the proceedings in Edwards’ action stayed until the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay. Edwards did not notify the district court that the automatic stay had been lifted until the court entered its own stay order. In April 2002, not aware of the true status of the bankruptcy stay, the district court entered an order refusing to consider any further pleadings until the bankruptcy stay was lifted. Later, realizing its error, the district court entered an order rescinding its previous stay orders. In an attempt to compel the district court to void all pleadings and orders filed after the bankruptcy, Edwards filed a notice of bankruptcy petition and a motion to stay the district court proceedings. The court denied Edwards’s motion. In March 2004, the district court dismissed the action against the remaining defendants pursuant to the NRCP 41(e)2 five-year rule. The trial had not commenced before the period expired, on October 22, 2003. In April 2004, Edwards filed his notice of appeal from the district court’s NRCP 41(e) dismissal order. Additionally, he filed a second complaint in the district court. This new complaint was nearly identical to his 1998 complaint. Therefore, the district court entered an order dismissing the second complaint, basing the dismissal on claim preclusion.