“No Second Bite at the Apple” – Nevada Supreme Court Bars Renewal of Statute-of-Limitations Period by Later Assignment
Commentary on Valjo, Inc. v. Euphoria Wellness, LLC, Nos. 87929 & 88137 (Nev. Aug. 14 2025)

1. Introduction

The consolidated appeals of Valjo, Inc. v. Euphoria Wellness, LLC asked the Nevada Supreme Court to decide whether parties may revive otherwise time-barred tort claims by re-characterizing their interest in the disputed property through a post-facto assignment or stipulation. Appellant Valjo, Inc. (“Valjo”) sought damages for conversion, intentional interference with contractual relations, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief arising from respondents’ continued possession of cannabis-production equipment. The district court dismissed the claims as untimely under the three-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.190(3)(c) and sanctioned Valjo with attorney fees. On appeal, Valjo contended that a 2023 stipulation (whereby it purportedly became the equipment’s outright owner) reset the accrual date.

The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed, establishing the principle that the limitations period for property-based torts begins when wrongful interference first occurs and cannot be restarted by a later assignment, stipulation, or “confirmation” of rights. This commentary dissects the Court’s reasoning, explores the authorities cited, and identifies the decision’s significance for Nevada commercial and creditors’-rights litigation.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Dismissal Affirmed: All four claims were properly dismissed under NRCP 12(b)(5) as barred by NRS 11.190(3)(c); the latest accrual date was July 27 2019 (Valjo’s failed repossession attempt).
• Single Limitations Period: Unjust-enrichment and declaratory-relief counts were duplicative of conversion/interference claims and shared the same three-year limitations period.
• No “Reset” via Stipulation: The August 10 2023 stipulation between related entities (Valjo and E&T) could not manufacture a new cause of action against third parties.
• Attorney Fees & Costs Upheld: The district court acted within its discretion under NRS 18.010(2)(b) to sanction Valjo for pursuing claims it “should have known were untimely.”

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

1. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of North Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224 (2008) – sets forth NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissal standard (“no set of facts” test).
2. Bemis v. Estate of Bemis, 114 Nev. 1021 (1998) – conversion claims governed by NRS 11.190(3)(c); applies discovery rule.
3. Stalk v. Mushkin, 125 Nev. 21 (2009) – intentional interference with contractual relations also subject to NRS 11.190(3)(c).
4. Clark v. Robison, 113 Nev. 949 (1997) – clarifies discovery rule for conversion claims.
5. Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 130 Nev. 67 (2014) and Logan v. Abe, 131 Nev. 260 (2015) – governing standards for reviewing fee and cost awards.
6. Valley Elec. Ass’n v. Overfield, 121 Nev. 7 (2005) – defines “prevailing party.”
7. MB America, Inc. v. Alaska Pacific Leasing Co., 132 Nev. 78 (2016) – abuse-of-discretion review explained.

The Court synthesized these cases to conclude that (a) the proper limitations period was three years, (b) accrual hinged on first interference plus discovery, and (c) sanctions may issue for knowingly stale claims.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

“To hold otherwise would allow litigants to circumvent the statute of limitations by simply requesting a confirmation of a prior ruling from years past, or by making a new assignment of the disputed contract or property.”

• Substance-over-Form Approach: The Court looked past the labels “secured creditor” vs. “owner” and examined the substantive rights asserted—exclusive possession and use of the same equipment interfered with in 2019.
• Single Wrong, Single Clock: Under traditional tort principles, the limitations period commences upon the first actionable invasion of the plaintiff’s interest. The subsequent change of title between allied entities did not create a new tort; it merely reshuffled who asserted the claim.
• Discovery Rule: Even giving Valjo every benefit, the latest discovery of harm occurred during the attempted repossession (July 27 2019). Knowledge then was undisputed.
• Policy Against Manipulation: The Court expressed concern that recognizing “reset” accruals would incentivize strategic paper transfers used solely to evade limitations defenses.
• Fee Sanction Justified: Because Valjo (and its common counsel) knew the timeline yet sued anyway, the district court properly invoked NRS 18.010(2)(b) to both compensate the prevailing party and deter vexatious litigation.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

The ruling erects a clear barrier against “limitations laundering” in Nevada:

• Assignments & Confirmations: Subsequent transfers, stipulations, or judgments among related parties do not create new accrual dates against third parties.
• Pleading Strategy: Plaintiffs cannot extend limitations by pleading identical facts under new theories (e.g., converting a conversion claim into declaratory relief or unjust enrichment).
• Secured Transactions: UCC lenders who fail to act promptly will be barred, regardless of later foreclosure, strict foreclosure, or title transfer agreements.
• Sanctions Risk: Filing facially time-barred claims may expose litigants—and their counsel—to fee shifting under NRS 18.010(2)(b).
• Judicial Efficiency: District courts may comfortably dispose of similar tactics at the Rule 12 stage, knowing the Supreme Court endorses substance-over-form analysis.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Statute of Limitations

A law setting the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. For conversion/interference in Nevada, it is three years (NRS 11.190(3)(c)).

Accrual

The moment when a claim “comes into existence”—i.e., when all elements of a cause of action are present and the plaintiff either knows or reasonably should know of the injury.

Discovery Rule

A doctrine that delays accrual until the plaintiff discovers, or should discover, the injury. Conversion claims in Nevada enjoy this rule.

NRCP 12(b)(5)

Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure allowing dismissal of a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Includes dismissals based on obvious statute-of-limitations bars.

Conversion

Intentional exercise of dominion or control over personal property that seriously interferes with the right of another to control it.

Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

Knowingly inducing a third party to breach or disrupt an existing contract, causing damages.

NRS 18.010(2)(b)

Statute permitting courts to award attorney fees to a prevailing party who defends against a claim “brought without reasonable grounds.” Designed to punish and deter frivolous litigation.

5. Conclusion

Valjo, Inc. v. Euphoria Wellness, LLC cements a straightforward but powerful rule: a party cannot revive stale tort claims by re-papering its interest in the disputed property after the fact. Accrual is fixed when the actionable interference occurs and is known, not when paperwork is later shuffled. The decision promotes certainty, curbs opportunistic litigation, and signals that Nevada courts will impose fee sanctions where plaintiffs ignore obvious time bars. Practitioners should conduct rigorous statute-of-limitations analyses before filing, especially in multi-entity, secured-transaction contexts where ownership and creditor status may evolve over time.