FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellant/Cross-Respondent,
GILBERT P. HYATT, Respondent/Cross-Appellant
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal and cross-appeal from a district court judgment on a jury verdict in a tort action and from a post-judgment order awarding costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, Judge.
Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg and Robert L. Eisenberg, Reno; McDonald Carano Wilson LLP and Pat Lundvall, Carla Higginbotham, and Megan L. Starich, Reno, for Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Kaempfer Crowell Renshaw Gronauer & Fiorentino and Peter C. Bernhard, Las Vegas; Hutchison & Steffen, LLC, and Mark A. Hutchison and Michael K. Wall, Las Vegas; Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP and Daniel F. Polsenberg, Las Vegas; Perkins Coie LLP and Donald J. Kula, Los Angeles, California, for Respondent/Cross-Appellant.
Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General, and C. Wayne Howle, Solicitor General, Carson City, for Amicus Curiae State of Nevada.
Dustin McDaniel, Attorney General, Little Rock, Arkansas, for Amicus Curiae State of Arkansas.
John V. Suthers, Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae State of Colorado.
Joseph R. " Beau" Biden III, Attorney General, and Richard S. Gebelein, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Wilmington, Delaware, for Amicus Curiae State of Delaware.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae State of Florida.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, Idaho, for Amicus Curiae State of Idaho.
Shone T. Pierre, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Amicus Curiae Louisiana Secretary and the Louisiana Department of Revenue.
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, Augusta, Maine, for Amicus Curiae State of Maine.
Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amicus Curiae State of Maryland.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Jefferson City, Missouri, for Amicus Curiae State of Missouri.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, Trenton, New Jersey, for Amicus Curiae State of New Jersey.
Donnita A. Wald, General Counsel, Bismarck, North Dakota, for Amicus Curiae North Dakota State Tax Commissioner Cory Fong.
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae State of Ohio.
W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Amicus Curiae State of Oklahoma.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, Nashville, Tennessee, for Amicus Curiae State of Tennessee.
John Swallow, Attorney General, and Clark L. Snelson, Assistant Attorney General, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Amicus Curiae State of Utah.
William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, Vermont, for Amicus Curiae State of Vermont.
William C. Mims, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Amicus Curiae State of Virginia.
Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, Olympia, Washington, for Amicus Curiae State of Washington.
Shirley Sicilian, General Counsel, Washington, District of Columbia, for Amicus Curiae Multistate Tax Commission.
HARDESTY, J. We concur: Gibbons, C.J., Pickering, J., Parraguirre, J., Douglas, J., Cherry, J.
BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.
In 1998, inventor Gilbert P. Hyatt sued the Franchise Tax Board of the State of California (FTB) seeking damages for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct committed bye FTB auditors during tax audits of Hyatt's 1991 and 1992 state tax returns. After years of litigation, a jury awarded Hyatt $139 million in damages on his tort claims and $250 million in punitive damages. In this appeal, we must determine, among other issues, whether we should revisit our exception to government immunity for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct as a result of this court's adoption of the federal test for discretionary-function immunity, which shields a government entity or its employees from suit for discretionary acts that involve an element of individual judgment or choice and that are grounded in public policy considerations. We hold that our exception to immunity for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct survives our adoption of the federal discretionary-function immunity test because intentional torts and bad-faith conduct are not based on public policy.
Because FTB cannot invoke discretionary-function immunity to protect itself from Hyatt's intentional tort and bad-faith causes of action, we must determine whether Hyatt's claims for invasion of privacy, breach of confidential relationship, abuse of process, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress survive as a matter of law, and if so, whether they are supported by substantial evidence. All of Hyatt's causes of action, except for his fraud and intentional infliction of emotion distress claims, fail as a matter of law, and thus, the judgment in his favor on these claims is reversed.
As to the fraud cause of action, sufficient evidence exists to support the jury's findings that FTB made false representations to Hyatt regarding the audits' processes and that Hyatt relied on those representations to his detriment and damages resulted. In regard to Hyatt's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, we conclude that medical records are not mandatory in order to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the acts of the defendant are sufficiently severe. As a result,
substantial evidence supports the jury's findings as to liability, but evidentiary and jury instruction errors committed by the district court require reversal of the damages awarded for emotional distress and a remand for a new trial as to the amount of damages on this claim only.
In connection with these causes of action, we must address whether FTB is entitled to a statutory cap on the amount of damages that Hyatt may recover from FTB on the fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under comity. We conclude that Nevada's policy interest in providing adequate redress to its citizens outweighs providing FTB a statutory cap on damages under comity, and therefore, we affirm the $1,085,281.56 of special damages awarded to Hyatt on his fraud cause of action and conclude that there is no statutory cap on the amount of damages that may be awarded on remand on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
We also take this opportunity to address as a matter of first impression whether, based on comity, it is reasonable to provide FTB with the same protection of California law, to the extent that it does not conflict with Nevada law, to grant FTB immunity from punitive damages. Because punitive damages would not be available against a Nevada government entity, we hold, under comity principles, that FTB is immune from punitive damages. Thus, we reverse that portion of the district court's judgment awarding Hyatt punitive damages.
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1993, after reading a newspaper article regarding respondent/cross-appellant Hyatt's lucrative computer-chip patent and the large sums of money that Hyatt was making from the patent, a tax auditor for appellant/cross-respondent FTB decided to review Hyatt's 1991 state income tax return. The return revealed that Hyatt did not report, as taxable income, the money that he had earned from the patent's licensing payments and that he had only reported 3.5 percent of his total taxable income for 1991. Hyatt's tax return showed that he had lived in California for nine months in 1991 before relocating to Las Vegas, Nevada, but Hyatt claimed no moving expenses on his 1991 tax return. Based on these discrepancies, FTB opened an audit on Hyatt's 1991 state income tax return.
The 1991 audit began when Hyatt was sent notice that he was being audited. This notification included an information request form that required Hyatt to provide certain information concerning his connections to California and Nevada and the facts surrounding his move to Nevada. A portion of the information request form contained a privacy notice, which stated in relevant part that " The Information Practices Act of 1977 and the federal Privacy Act require the Franchise Tax Board to tell you why we ask you for information. The Operations and Compliance Divisions ask for tax return information to carry out the Personal Income Tax Law of the State of California." Also included with the notification was a document containing a list of what the taxpayer could expect from FTB: " Courteous treatment by FTB employees[,] Clear and concise requests for information from the auditor assigned to your case[,] Confidential treatment of any personal and financial information that you provide to us[,] Completion of the audit within a reasonable amount of time[.]"
The audit involved written communications and interviews. FTB sent over 100 letters and demands for information to third parties including banks, utility companies, newspapers (to learn if Hyatt had subscriptions), medical providers, Hyatt's attorneys, two Japanese companies that held licenses to Hyatt's patent (inquiring about payments to Hyatt), and other individuals and entities that Hyatt had identified as contacts. Many, but not all, of the letters and demands for information contained Hyatt's social security number or home address or both. FTB also requested information and documents directly from Hyatt. Interviews were conducted and signed statements were obtained from three of Hyatt's relatives--his ex-wife, his brother, and his daughter--all of whom were
estranged from Hyatt during the relevant period in question, except for a short time when Hyatt and his daughter attempted to reconcile their relationship. No relatives with whom Hyatt had good relations, including his son, were ever interviewed even though Hyatt had identified them as contacts. FTB sent auditors to Hyatt's neighborhood in California and to various locations in Las Vegas in search of information.
Upon completion of the 1991 audit, FTB concluded that Hyatt did not move from California to Las Vegas in September 1991, as he had stated, but rather, that Hyatt had moved in April 1992. FTB further concluded that Hyatt had staged the earlier move to Nevada by renting an apartment, obtaining a driver's license, insurance, bank account, and registering to vote, all in an effort to avoid state income tax liability on his patent licensing. FTB further determined that the sale of Hyatt's California home to his work assistant was a sham. A detailed explanation of what factors FTB considered in reaching its conclusions was provided, which in addition to the above, included comparing contacts between Nevada and California, banking activity in the two states, evidence of Hyatt's location in the two states during the relevant period, and professionals whom he employed in the two states. Based on these findings, FTB determined that Hyatt owed the state of California approximately $1.8 million in additional state income taxes and that penalties against Hyatt in the amount of $1.4 million were warranted. These amounts, coupled with $1.2 million in interest, resulted in a total assessment of $4.5 million.
The 1991 audit's finding that Hyatt did not move to Las Vegas until April 1992 prompted FTB to commence a second audit of Hyatt's 1992 California state taxes. Because he maintained that he lived in Nevada that tax year, Hyatt did not file a California tax return for 1992, and he opposed the audit. Relying in large part on the 1991 audit's findings and a single request for information sent to Hyatt regarding patent-licensing payments received in 1992, FTB found that Hyatt owed the state of California over $6 million in taxes and interest for 1992. Moreover, penalties similar to those imposed by the 1991 audit were later assessed.
Hyatt formally challenged the audits' conclusions by filing two protests with FTB that were handled concurrently. Under a protest, an audit is reviewed by FTB for accuracy, or the need for any changes, or both. The protests lasted over 11 years and involved 3 different FTB auditors. In the end, FTB upheld the audits, and Hyatt went on to challenge them in the California courts.
During the protests, Hyatt filed the underlying Nevada lawsuit in January 1998. His complaint included a claim for declaratory relief concerning the timing of his move from California to Nevada and a claim for negligence. The complaint also identified seven intentional tort causes of action allegedly committed by FTB during the 1991 and 1992 audits: invasion of privacy--intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy--publicity of private facts, invasion of privacy--false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, breach of confidential relationship, and abuse of process. Hyatt's lawsuit was grounded on his allegations that FTB conducted unfair audits that amounted to FTB " seeking to trump up a tax claim against him or attempt[ing] to extort him," that FTB's audits were " goal-oriented," that the audits were conducted to improve FTB's tax assessment numbers, and that the penalties FTB imposed against Hyatt were intended " to better bargain for and position the case to settle."
Early in the litigation, FTB filed a motion for partial summary judgment challenging the Nevada district court's jurisdiction over Hyatt's declaratory relief cause of action. The district court agreed on the basis that the timing of Hyatt's move from California to Nevada and whether FTB properly assessed taxes and penalties against Hyatt should be resolved in the ongoing California administrative process. Accordingly, the district
court granted FTB partial summary judgment. As a result of the district court's ruling, the parties were required to litigate the action under the restraint that any determinations as to the audits' accuracy were not part of Hyatt's tort action and the jury would not make any findings as to when Hyatt moved to Nevada or whether the audits' conclusions were correct.
FTB also moved the district court for partial summary judgment to preclude Hyatt from seeking recovery for alleged economic damages. As part of its audit investigation, FTB sent letters to two Japanese companies that had licensing agreements with Hyatt requesting payment information between Hyatt and the companies. Included with the letters were copies of the licensing agreements between Hyatt and the Japanese companies. Hyatt asserted that those documents were confidential and that when FTB sent the documents to the companies, the companies were made aware that Hyatt was under investigation. Based on this disclosure, Hyatt theorized that the companies would have then notified the Japanese government, who would in turn notify other Japanese businesses that Hyatt was under investigation. Hyatt claimed that this ultimately ended Hyatt's patent-licensing business in Japan. Hyatt's evidence in support of these allegations included the fact that FTB sent the letters, that the two businesses sent responses, that Hyatt had no patent-licensing income after this occurred, and expert testimony that this chain of events would likely have occurred in the Japanese business culture. FTB argued that Hyatt's evidence was speculative and insufficient to adequately support his claim. Hyatt argued that he had sufficient circumstantial evidence to present the issue to the jury. The district court granted FTB's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that Hyatt had offered no admissible evidence to support that the theorized chain of events actually occurred and, as a result, his evidence was too speculative to overcome the summary judgment motion.
One other relevant proceeding that bears discussion in this appeal concerns two original writ petitions filed by FTB in this court in 2000. In those petitions, FTB sought immunity from the entire underlying Nevada lawsuit, arguing that it was entitled to the complete immunity that it enjoyed under California law based on either sovereign immunity, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, or comity. This court resolved the petitions together in an unpublished order in which we concluded that FTB was not entitled to full immunity under any of these principles. But we did determine that, under comity, FTB should be granted partial immunity equal to the immunity a Nevada government agency would receive. In light of that ruling, this court held that FTB was immune from Hyatt's negligence cause of action, but not from his intentional tort causes of action. The court concluded that while Nevada provided immunity for discretionary decisions made by government agencies, such immunity did not apply to intentional torts or bad-faith conduct because to allow it to do so would " contravene Nevada's policies and interests in this case."
This court's ruling in the writ petitions was appealed to and upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488, 123 S.Ct. 1683, 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003). In Hyatt, the Supreme Court focused on the issue of whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the federal constitution required Nevada to afford FTB the benefit of the full immunity that California provides FTB. Id. at 494. The Court upheld this court's determination that Nevada was not required to give FTB full immunity. Id. at 499. The Court further upheld this court's conclusion that FTB was entitled to partial immunity under comity principles, observing that this court " sensitively applied principles of comity with a healthy regard for California's sovereign status, relying on the contours of Nevada's own sovereign immunity from suit as a benchmark for its analysis." Id. The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed this court's limitation of Hyatt's case against FTB to the intentional tort causes of action.
Ultimately, Hyatt's case went to trial before a jury. The trial lasted approximately
four months. The jury found in favor of Hyatt on all intentional tort causes of action and returned special verdicts awarding him damages in the amount of $85 million for emotional distress, $52 million for invasion of privacy, $1,085,281.56 as special damages for fraud, and $250 million in punitive damages. Following the trial, Hyatt sought prejudgment interest and moved the district court for costs. The district court assigned the motion to a special master who, after 15 months of discovery and further motion practice, issued a recommendation that Hyatt be awarded approximately $2.5 million in costs. The district court adopted the master's recommendation.
FTB appeals from the district court's final judgment and the post-judgment award of costs. Hyatt cross-appeals, challenging the district court's partial summary judgment ruling that he could not seek, as part of his damages at trial, economic damages for the alleged destruction of his patent-licensing business in Japan.
We begin by addressing FTB's appeal, which raises numerous issues that it argues entitle it to either judgment as a matter of law in its favor or remand for a new trial. As a threshold matter, we address discretionary-function immunity and whether Hyatt's causes of action against FTB are barred by this immunity, or whether there is an exception to the immunity for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct. Deciding that FTB is not immune from suit, we then consider FTB's arguments as to each of Hyatt's intentional tort causes of action. We conclude our consideration of FTB's appeal by discussing Nevada's statutory caps on damages and immunity from punitive damages. As for Hyatt's cross-appeal, we close this opinion by considering his challenge to the district court's partial summary judgment in FTB's favor on Hyatt's damages claim for economic loss.
FTB is not immune from suit under comity because discretionary-function immunity in Nevada does not protect Nevada's government or its employees from intentional torts and bad-faith conduct
Like most states, Nevada has waived traditional sovereign immunity from tort liability, with some exceptions. NRS 41.031. The relevant exception at issue in this appeal is discretionary-function immunity, which provides that no action can be brought against the state or its employee " based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of the State . . . or of any . . . employee . . ., whether or not the discretion involved is abused." NRS 41.032(2). By adopting discretionary-function immunity, our Legislature has placed a limit on its waiver of sovereign immunity. Discretionary-function immunity is grounded in separation of powers concerns and is designed to preclude the judicial branch from " second-guessing," in a tort action, legislative and executive branch decisions that are based on " social, economic, and political policy." Martinez v. Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433, 446, 168 P.3d 720, 729 (2007) (internal quotations omitted); see also Bailey v. United States, 623 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir. 2010). FTB initially argues on appeal that immunity protects it from Hyatt's intentional tort causes of action based on the application of discretionary-function immunity and comity as recognized in Nevada.
Comity is a legal principle whereby a forum state may give effect to the laws and judicial decisions of another state based in part on deference and respect for the other state, but only so long as the other state's laws are not contrary to the policies of the forum state. Mianecki v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 99 Nev. 93, 98, 658 P.2d 422, 424-25 (1983); see also Solomon v. Supreme Court of Fla., 816 A.2d 788, 790 (D.C. 2002); Schoeberlein v. Purdue Univ., 129 Ill.2d 372, 544 N.E.2d 283, 285, 135 Ill.Dec. 787 (Ill. 1989); McDonnell v. Ill, 163 N.J. 298, 748 A.2d 1105,
1107 (N.J. 2000); Sam v. Estate of Sam, 2006 - NMSC 022, 139 N.M. 474, 134 P.3d 761, 764-66 (N.M. 2006); Hansen v. Scott, 2004 ND 179, 687 N.W.2d 247, 250, 250 (N.D. 2004). The purpose behind comity is to " foster cooperation, promote harmony, and build good will" between states. Hansen, 687 N.W.2d at 250 (internal quotations omitted). But whether to invoke comity is within the forum state's discretion. Mianecki, 99 Nev. at 98, 658 P.2d at 425. Thus, when a lawsuit is filed against another state in Nevada, while Nevada is not required to extend immunity in its courts to the other state, Nevada will consider extending immunity under comity, so long as doing so does not violate Nevada's public policies. Id. at 98, 658 P.2d at 424-25. In California, FTB enjoys full immunity from tort actions arising in the context of an audit. Cal. Gov't Code § 860.2 (West 2012). FTB contends that it should receive the immunity protection provided by California statutes to the extent that such immunity does not violate Nevada's public policies under comity.
Discretionary-function immunity in Nevada
This court's treatment of discretionary-function immunity has changed over time. In the past, we applied different tests to determine whether to grant a government entity or its employee discretionary-function immunity. See, e.g., Arnesano v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp., 113 Nev. 815, 823-24, 942 P.2d 139, 144-45 (1997) (applying planning-versus-operational test to government action), abrogated by Martinez, 123 Nev. at 443-44, 168 P.3d at 726-27; State v. Silva, 86 Nev. 911, 913-14, 478 P.2d 591, 592-93 (1970) (applying discretionary-versus-ministerial test to government conduct), abrogated by Martinez, 123 Nev. at 443-44, 168 P.3d at 726-27. We also recognized an exception to discretionary-function immunity for intentional torts and bad-faith conduct. Falline v. GNLV Corp., 107 Nev. 1004, 1009, 823 P.2d 888, 892 & n.3 (1991) (plurality opinion). More recently, we adopted the federal two-part test for determining the applicability of discretionary-function immunity. Martinez, 123 Nev. at 444-47, 168 P.3d at 727-29 (adopting test named after two United States Supreme Court decisions: Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), and United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 111 S.Ct. 1267, 113 L.Ed.2d 335 (1991)). Under the Berkovitz-Gaubert two-part test, discretionary-function immunity will apply if the government actions at issue " (1) involve an element of individual judgment or choice and (2) [are] based on considerations of social, economic, or political policy." Martinez, 123 Nev. at 446-47, 168 P.3d at 729. When this court adopted the federal test in Martinez, we expressly dispensed with the earlier tests used by this court to determine whether to grant a government entity or its employee immunity, id. at 444, 168 P.3d at 727, but we did not address the Falline exception to immunity for intentional torts or bad-faith misconduct.
In the earlier writ petitions filed by FTB in this court, we relied on Falline to determine that FTB was entitled to immunity from Hyatt's negligence cause of action, but not the remaining intentional-tort-based causes of action. Because the law concerning the application of discretionary-function immunity has changed in Nevada since FTB's writ petitions were resolved, we revisit the application of discretionary-function immunity to FTB in the present case as it relates to Hyatt's intentional tort causes of action. Hsu v. Cnty. of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 632, 173 P.3d 724, 730 (2007) (stating that " the doctrine of the law of the case should not apply where, in the interval between two appeals of a case, there has been a change in the law by . . . a judicial ruling entitled to deference" (internal quotations omitted)).
FTB contends that when this court adopted the federal test in Martinez, it impliedly overruled the Falline exception to discretionary-function immunity for intentional torts and bad-faith misconduct. Hyatt maintains that the Martinez case did not alter the exception created in Falline and that discretionary immunity does not apply to bad-faith misconduct because an employee does not have discretion to undertake intentional torts or act in bad faith.
In Falline, 107 Nev. at 1009, 823 P.2d at 891-92, this court ruled that the discretionary-function immunity under NRS 41.032(2) did ...