Red Rock’s motion to dismiss

Judicial Estoppel Elements


(1) the same party has taken two positions;
(2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings;
(3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true);
(4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and
(5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.

Matter of Frei Irrevocable Tr. Dated October 29, 1996, 390 P.3d 646, 652 (Nev. 2017) (quoting Vaile v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. County of Clark, 44 P.3d 506, 514 (Nev. 2002).

Judicial Estoppel Elements



(2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings;
(3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true);
(4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and
(5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.

Matter of Frei Irrevocable Tr. Dated October 29, 1996, 390 P.3d 646, 652 (Nev. 2017) (quoting Vaile v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ex rel. County of Clark, 44 P.3d 506, 514 (Nev. 2002).

(1) the same party has taken two positions;

  1. Red Rock has said that Tobin’s claims were heard on their merits

2. Red R stated that the HOA carefully showed all the notices Rock Rock had provided .

3. Red Rock attached Tobin’s 3/5/19 DECL includes 26 statements (out of 69 paragraphs) made under penalty of perjury specifically refute that Red rock or the HOA provided the notice and due process required by statutes and the HOA governing documents. The court couldn’t have considered this evidence and ruled that there were no disputed material facts.

Judicial Estoppel Does not apply to Tobin given the facts


(1) the same party has taken two positions;
No. She has been consistent. GBH Trust owned it at the time of the sale but she asserted an interest as an individual beneficiary since Hansen’s death in 2012. She became the successor in interest to the GBH Trust when she closed the insolvent trust in 2017 and she put the title into her own name.

(2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings;
All her statements have been under oath. All the records related to her title claims are recorded in Clark County.

(3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true);
No. Quite the reverse. Opposing parties keep insisting that she doesn’t have the right to assert a title claim that is guaranteed by NRS 40.010 while they are busy contradicting themselves and concealing their true standing.

(4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and
Not applicable

(5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.
Not applicable


Non-mutual Claims Preclusion Elements


(1) There is a valid final judgment,
(2) a subsequent action is based on the same claims or any part of them that were
or could have been brought in the first action, and
(3) “the parties or their privies are the same in the instant lawsuit as they were in
the previous lawsuit, or the defendant can demonstrate that he or she should
have been included as a defendant in the earlier suit and the plaintiff fails to
provide a ‘good reason’ for not having done so.”

Unjust Enrichment is not time-barred

The applicable statute of limitations is NRS 11.070 per Weeping Hollow case


Weeping Hollow Ave. Tr. v. Spencer 831 F.3d 1110(9th Cir 2016

Scroll to Top