## Facts

- Mario LaBarbera, an Italian citizen who did not speak English, traveled to Las Vegas in 2008 after recruitment by an Italian-speaking Wynn VIP host.
- LaBarbera gambled and lost approximately $1,000,000 of his own funds at Wynn Las Vegas.
- Wynn Las Vegas extended LaBarbera $1,070,000 in gaming credit through casino markers; $1,000,000 remained unpaid.
- LaBarbera asserted defenses including that he was intoxicated when he signed the markers, that the signatures were forged, and that he suffered from gambling addiction.
- Wynn pursued collection by filing a civil breach-of-contract action and also made a criminal complaint that resulted in an outstanding bench warrant, preventing LaBarbera from appearing in Clark County without arrest.
- Wynn moved in limine to exclude evidence of gambling addiction, intoxication, and forgery; the district court excluded addiction and intoxication evidence but allowed the forgery theory.
- LaBarbera moved to testify from Italy by videoconference with an interpreter due to the bench warrant; the district court denied the request and trial proceeded without his testimony.
- The jury found for Wynn, and the district court entered judgment for $1,000,000 plus contract interest, fees, costs, and other interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Nevada Supreme Court Rules Part IX-B(B) by summarily denying LaBarbera’s request to testify at trial via audiovisual equipment with an interpreter.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard when it excluded all evidence of LaBarbera’s alleged intoxication in a contract action to enforce casino markers.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by denying remote testimony without properly applying the factors required by NSCR Part IX-B(B).
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding intoxication evidence, because voluntary intoxication may be relevant to contractual capacity under a stringent standard.
- The court concluded the combined errors were not harmless because they substantially impaired LaBarbera’s ability to present his defenses.

## Legal Principles

- Under NSCR Part IX-B(B), a court must exercise reasoned discretion and consider the rule’s factors when deciding whether audiovisual testimony would promote the interests of justice.
- A denial of remote testimony that is summary and unsupported by factor-based analysis constitutes an abuse of discretion when the testimony is central and in-person testimony is effectively unavailable.
- In Nevada contract cases, voluntary intoxication is a narrow defense subject to a very high burden, but evidence of extreme intoxication may be admissible to contest capacity to understand the nature and consequences of contracting.
- Excluding all intoxication evidence based on an incorrect standard improperly prevents a party from attempting to meet the applicable burden.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the district court failed to apply the governing rule for audiovisual testimony and wrongly barred all intoxication evidence, errors that materially limited the defendant’s ability to present defenses to enforcement of casino markers.


LaBarbera v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 422 P.3d 138 (Nev. 2018)