End of COVID-19 Tolling and Non-Revival of Terminated Directives: Supreme Court of Nevada Clarifies Statute-of-Limitations Computation in Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. v. District Court (Campbell) (2025)

1. Introduction

On 21 August 2025, the Supreme Court of Nevada issued a writ of mandamus in Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. v. District Court (Campbell), No. 89535, directing the district court to dismiss a personal-injury action as time-barred. The petition arose after plaintiffs Natalia Campbell and Maria De Drada sued Monarch Casino more than three years after sustaining injuries on 2 January 2019. They relied on Nevada’s COVID-19 emergency directives to argue that the two-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.190(4)(e) had been tolled for a sufficient period. Key questions before the Court were:

• Did Emergency Directive 029, issued 31 July 2020, revive the tolling provision previously terminated by Directive 026?
• If statutory tolling did not apply, did equitable tolling save the complaint?
• When is mandamus relief appropriate to correct a district court’s refusal to dismiss an untimely claim?

The Supreme Court answered decisively: Directive 029 did not restart tolling; equitable tolling was inapplicable; and the district court’s refusal to dismiss constituted a manifest abuse of discretion warranting mandamus relief.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Applying canons of statutory (directive) construction, the Court found:

• Statutory Tolling Ended 30 June 2020. Directive 026 terminated Directive 009’s blanket tolling on 30 June 2020 and restarted the clock as of 1 August 2020.
• Directive 029 Did Not Revive Terminated Directives. Section 5 expressly excluded directives “previously terminated” from its general extension clause.
• Complaint Untimely. With fewer than twelve months remaining after 1 August 2020, the plaintiffs’ filing on 2 May 2022 exceeded the two-year limitation by over a year.
• No Equitable Tolling. Plaintiffs failed to show “extraordinary circumstances” or diligence as required by Fausto v. Sanchez-Flores.
• Mandamus Granted. The district court had a clear legal duty to dismiss; mandamus was the only adequate remedy.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (2008) – Established that mandamus lies where a statute clearly requires dismissal.
• Dignity Health v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (2024) – Interpreted the 009-026 directive pair and held that tolling ended on 30 June 2020; heavily relied upon here for directive-construction methodology.
• Igtiben v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ct. App. 2024) – Granted mandamus to dismiss a complaint filed outside the statutory period, illustrating the “no factual dispute” exception.
• Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (2020) – Clarified mandamus prerequisites; cited for burden allocation.
• Fausto v. Sanchez-Flores (2021) – Provided the equitable-tolling standard applied to reject plaintiffs’ arguments.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(a) Textualism and Harmonization. The Court treated executive directives as statutory text (Dignity Health), examining words in context:

• Directive 026: “shall terminate on June 30, 2020 at 11:59 p.m.” – unequivocal cessation of Directive 009.
• Directive 029 §4: extends directives “set to expire on July 31, 2020” unless terminated prior to that date.
• Directive 029 §5: carve-out for “previously terminated” directives.

Because Directive 009 was already terminated (not merely expiring) on 30 June 2020, sections 4 and 5 collectively barred its revival.

(b) Computation of Time. With 1 year 4 months left as of 1 August 2020, the limitations period expired in December 2021. The 2 May 2022 filing was untimely by approximately five months.

(c) Equitable Tolling Analysis. The Court reiterated the two-prong test: diligence + extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiffs’ mistaken statutory interpretation and inaction did not qualify; e-filing and telephone access negated any pandemic-related closure concerns.

(d) Mandamus Appropriateness. Statute-of-limitations bars present pure, non-discretionary questions of law when facts are undisputed, fitting the Int’l Game Tech. exception to the general reluctance toward writ review of interlocutory denials.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

The ruling cements three practical guidelines for Nevada litigants:

1. No Automatic Revival of Lapsed Tolling. Once an emergency directive terminating tolling expires, a later directive’s general extension clause cannot resuscitate it unless expressly stated.
2. Heightened Diligence Burden Post-Pandemic. Lawyers cannot rely on evolving emergency orders without independent verification; courts expect filings through e-systems irrespective of physical access constraints.
3. Mandamus as a Statute-of-Limitations Remedy. Defendants facing tardy complaints can seek writ relief early, conserving resources and docket space.

Beyond personal-injury suits, the case influences all actions governed by NRS Chapter 11 and any other statutes tolled by Directive 009. It may spur legislative or executive clarification in future emergencies regarding the duration and revival of tolling provisions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Tolling. A legal “pause button” that temporarily stops a statutory deadline from running.
• Emergency Directive. An executive order issued by the Governor during a declared emergency, carrying the force of law.
• Statute of Limitations. The maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.
• Equitable Tolling. A judge-made doctrine allowing deadlines to be extended when fairness so requires—typically only for uncontrollable obstacles plus diligent effort.
• Writ of Mandamus. An extraordinary appellate remedy commanding a government official or lower court to perform a clearly defined duty.
• Plain-Language Rule. Courts give words their ordinary meaning when statutory text is clear, avoiding extraneous interpretation.

5. Conclusion

Monarch Casino & Resort v. District Court (Campbell) delivers a concise but far-reaching message: pandemic-related tolling in Nevada unequivocally ended on 30 June 2020, and nothing in Directive 029 reinstated it. The Court’s strict textualism, coupled with a demanding view of equitable tolling, underscores the judiciary’s expectation of professional diligence even during unprecedented crises. For practitioners, the decision closes the door on post-June-2020 tolling arguments and reaffirms mandamus as a potent tool against stale claims. In the broader legal landscape, the case illustrates how emergency powers interface with enduring statutory schemes and the importance of precise executive drafting to prevent ambiguity in future emergencies.