Karen L. Bashor

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) and Elisa Wyatt (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) secured a rare summary judgment in Las Vegas, Nevada, a notoriously plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction, in a fire case. The plaintiff initially brought suit claiming negligence and negligent hiring, training and supervision for injuries related to a three-alarm fire in the pool area of our client casino/ resort hotel. Through targeted discovery and expert preparation on behalf of the firm’s client, Karen and Elisa efficiently and aggressively litigated this case and postured it for dismissal by the court.

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) and Kimberly Nelson (Associate-Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment on reconsideration in the District court of Clark County, Nevada on behalf of the firm’s clients – an esthetician/cosmetologist and her LLC. The plaintiff claimed her face was burned, scarred and left disfigured following a non-invasive cosmetic procedure, fibroblast. After filing an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, Karen and Kim filed their motion for summary judgement as a matter of law on the enforceability of a waiver of liability signed by the plaintiff, which waived, released and discharged defendants from all claims for liability, including personal injury arising out of negligence. The waiver included language that the plaintiff recognized side effects may occur. Our motion was denied because the waiver of liability did not include the word “burn” as a possible side effect. As Nevada case law does not require the specification of all plausible injuries for waiver of liability to be enforceable, Karen and Kim filed a motion for reconsideration. Two days prior to mediation, where the demand was near seven figures, the district court judge not only agreed the prior decision was erroneous warranting reconsideration, but granted summary judgment in favor of our clients on all causes of action, agreeing that the plain language of the waiver, warning of redness of the skin, inflammation and irritation, was sufficient to shield defendants from liability and dismiss the entire case.  

Las Vegas partners Karen Bashor and Mark Severino and associate Taylor Buono obtained dismissal of a lawsuit brought one year after a pre-suit settlement was agreed and a release had been signed in a motor vehicle accident matter. Immediately after suit was filed, Karen, Mark and Taylor filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, a motion for summary judgment, asserting the release was binding and not void. The plaintiff opposed the motion contending the release was void under a new Nevada statute allowing a plaintiff to void a release signed within 30 days of an incident and without the advice of counsel. However, while plaintiff admitted she “consulted” with a law firm, she claimed she only spoke to a case manager rather than an attorney and never actually retained the law firm. Karen, Mark and Taylor argued that the statute did not require retention of counsel, and that plaintiff admitted she received legal advice at the time of signing the release. In the alternative, they argued that if plaintiff did not receive legal advice, she should be estopped from voiding the release because she intentionally misrepresented to the client that she had sought legal advice, which she used to negotiate a higher settlement. The Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County agreed, finding that plaintiff received legal advice and/or that she misrepresented that she received legal advice to the client in order to induce a higher settlement. Therefore, the release remained enforceable and plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas) , I-Che Lai (Associate-Las Vegas) and Gregg Tatarka (Partner-White Plains) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in United States District Court, District of Nevada on behalf of a global electronics company where the Plaintiff alleged that a cell phone exploded in his hand, causing burns and requiring surgery. Plaintiff filed suit and demanded millions, asserting causes of action for strict products liability, negligence and breach of an implied warranty claim. Karen aggressively and extensively deposed both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s expert in this matter. I-Che prepared a detailed brief with additional affidavits in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with the assistance of Gregg. Based on the deposition testimony of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s experts, and filed briefs, the Court granted Defendant’s motion. In summary, the Court agreed that Plaintiff’s case hinged on their expert. While the Court found the expert qualified given his extensive experience as an engineer, the Court deemed his opinions unreliable, particularly his failure to explain the methodology he employed to determine the manufacturing defect existed when the phone left Defendant’s possession, including a failure to rule out tampering. The Court further determined that Plaintiff’s negligence claim suffered from the same deficiency as, and was subsumed by, his strict product liability claim. Moreover, the Court noted Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that horizontal privity exists between him and defendant. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim as well.

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) and Las Vegas associates Elisa Wyatt and Taylor Buono obtained a dismissal without leave to amend in the Eighth Judicial District Court on behalf of a skilled nursing facility. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the nursing facility was negligent in the care of the decedent, causing him to develop a bed sore and contract COVID-19. Karen, Elisa and Taylor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff did not comply with requirements to state a claim for professional negligence in Nevada, or to state a claim for injury related to exposure to COVID-19. The plaintiff argued a skilled nursing facility is not a health care provider under Nevada law. The judge had previously agreed with the plaintiff’s counsel’s argument in an unrelated but identical case, and the issue is currently on appeal. This time, the court disagreed with the plaintiff’s counsel and granted the motion, dismissing the complaint without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff did not comply with Nevada’s pleading requirements.

 ​Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) and Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment in favor a petroleum transportation company in Clark County District Court. The plaintiffs alleged the client's tractor-trailer negligently rear-ended their vehicle, causing significant bodily injuries and totaling the vehicle. Suspecting this was a staged accident, Karen and Colt propounded extensive discovery, including requests to admit the accident was staged. Their investigation revealed that a witness had been a defendant in a separate action filed by the same plaintiffs' counsel regarding a similar accident that occurred just a half hour before. That witness's deposition testimony confirmed the first accident was staged by the same individuals in the same vehicles involved in the client's accident. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs' counsel withdrew, and Karen and Colt moved for summary judgment based on the witness's testimony, accident photographs, the client's statement and the plaintiffs' failure to respond to discovery. The plaintiffs elected not to oppose the motion, which the court granted, finding that by staging the accident, the plaintiffs consented to and assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law.

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas, NV) and Colt Dodrill (Of Counsel-Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment in favor a petroleum transportation company in Clark County District Court. The plaintiffs alleged the client’s tractor-trailer negligently rear-ended their vehicle, causing significant bodily injuries and totaling the vehicle. Suspecting this was a staged accident, Karen and Colt propounded extensive discovery, including requests to admit the accident was staged. Their investigation revealed that a witness had been a defendant in a separate action filed by the same plaintiffs’ counsel regarding a similar accident that occurred just a half hour before. That witness’s deposition testimony confirmed the first accident was staged by the same individuals in the same vehicles involved in the client’s accident. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew, and Karen and Colt moved for summary judgment based on the witness’s testimony, accident photographs, the client’s statement and the plaintiffs’ failure to respond to discovery. The plaintiffs elected not to oppose the motion, which the court granted, finding that by staging the accident, the plaintiffs consented to and assumed the risk of injury as a matter of law.

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas) and Mark C. Severino (Of Counsel-Las Vegas) settled a premises liability case in Clark County District Court on behalf of a Las Vegas restaurant for slightly more than 1 percent of the plaintiff's last demand. The plaintiff tripped and fell down a small flight of concrete stairs while exiting the client restaurant, resulting in severe fractures of her ankle/lower leg in four places. The fractures required three separate surgical repairs and the use of a bone growth stimulator to heal. The plaintiff alleged negligence with respect to the lighting conditions, claimed negligent design of the staircase and argued notice with other incidences. Using a grainy, low-quality surveillance video and still images pulled from it, Karen and Mark were able to show that the plaintiff turned her head and looked right immediately before tripping and falling. With the use of the video and still images, Mark got the plaintiff to admit during her deposition that she was not watching where she was walking, which was dangerous and could have caused her to fall. The plaintiff subsequently accepted a nominal offer of judgment to resolve the case before dispositive motions were filed.

Karen L. Bashor (Partner-Las Vegas) and Rebecca A. Smith (Associate-Las Vegas) defended a Las Vegas restaurant where a patron alleged that she slipped on a liquid substance on the floor and suffered injuries. The plaintiff sued for premises liability negligence and negligent hiring, training and supervision. Rebecca deposed the plaintiff and elicited additional evidence to support the defense, including an earlier incident on the same day where the plaintiff witnessed the restaurant respond promptly to another spill. As the lead attorney for the arbitration hearing, Rebecca capitalized on the plaintiff’s own testimony in support of the defense, highlighted plaintiff’s lack of credibility for the self-serving testimony as to the subject incident and used the evidence of independent witnesses to support the defense. The arbitrator found no liability whatsoever and as a result did not award plaintiff any damages.