Pauluk et al v. Clark County Health District

Filing 166

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 122 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is granted as to Plaintiffs' negligent supervision and training claims. The motion is denied in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for parties shall file a joint pretrial order by 1/23/14. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 12/9/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10

WENDY J. PAULUK, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT, )
et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

2:07-CV-01681-PMP-VCF

ORDER

17

This case arises from the July 17, 2007 death of Daniel Pauluk, which was

18
19

allegedly caused by toxic mold at his government work place maintained by Defendant

20

Clark County Health District. The action was originally filed in state court but was

21

removed to this Court on December 17, 2007. On June 30, 2008, this Court entered an

22

Order (Doc. #17) granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. A

23

Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order was approved by the Court on July 14, 2008

24

(Doc. #21), and extensive discovery was thereafter conducted and litigated by the parties

25

over the ensuing three years.

26

///

On April 7, 2011, the Court entered an Order (Doc. #74) granting Plaintiffs’

1
2

Motion to Stay (Doc. #73) based on Plaintiff Wendy J. Pauluk’s ill health. The period of

3

stay was effectively lifted by October 22, 2012 (See Doc. #109 & #110).
On August 15, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

4
5

#122) which was accompanied by more than 1,000 pages of exhibits. Defendants’ Motion

6

provoked a Response from Plaintiffs (Doc. #131) which similarly was supported by more

7

than 1,000 pages of exhibits. The parties completed briefing on Defendants’ motion for

8

summary judgement with the filing of Defendants’ Reply Memorandum (Doc. #165) on

9

December 5, 2013.
The Court will grant Defendants’ Motion as to Plaintiffs’ negligent supervision

10
11

and training claim because Defendants are entitled to discretionary immunity with respect to

12

this claim. See Neal-Lomax v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 574 F. Supp. 2d 1170, 1192

13

(D. Nev. 2008). However, after thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds

14

there remain genuine issues of material fact with regard to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims

15

which survived this Court’s Order (Doc. #17) entered June 30, 2008 on Defendants’ Motion

16

to Dismiss. Additionally, as to Defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by

17

the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act and the Nevada Occupational Disease Act, Defendants

18

fail to address how Daniel Pauluk’s alleged exposure to and death from toxic mold qualifies

19

as an occupational disease as defined by the statute and relevant case law. See Nev. Rev.

20

Stat. § 617.440; Palmer v. Del Webb’s High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435, 436 (Nev. 1992). This

21

very old case needs to be set for trial forthwith.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary

22
23

Judgment (Doc. #122) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Motion is granted

24

as to Plaintiffs’ negligent supervision and training claim. The Motion is denied in all other

25

respects.

26

///
2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall forthwith meet

2

and confer and shall not later than January 23, 2014, file a Joint Pretrial Order following

3

which this Court will schedule this matter for both Settlement Conference before a

4

Magistrate Judge, and trial.

5
6

DATED: December 9, 2013.

7
8
9

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3