Leigh-Pink v. Rio Properties

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Nevada Supreme Court the question whether, for purposes of a fraudulent concealment claim and a consumer fraud claim under Nevada Revised Statute § 41.600, a plaintiff has suffered damages if the defendant’s fraudulent actions caused the plaintiff to purchase a product or service that the plaintiff would not otherwise have purchased, even if the product or service was not worth less than what the plaintiff paid. Joined by several other consumer advocacy organizations, we filed an amicus brief explaining that such a plaintiff has suffered damages because the plaintiff has sustained economic loss and not received the benefit of the bargain. The brief also explained that a negative answer to the certified question would have significant ramifications for consumers who care about whether the products they buy satisfy religious requirements, are produced in accordance with fair labor or environmental standards, were made in the United States, or would place consumers at risk of harm. Accepting the Ninth Circuit’s finding that the plaintiff had “received the true value of the goods or services purchased,” the court held that a plaintiff in that circumstance has not suffered damages for purposes of a Nevada common-law fraudulent concealment claim or § 41.600.