By Brandon Mikhail Thompson
For most firms that practice civil litigation, tort claims are your “garden variety,” “run-of-the-mill,” “I can litigate this with my eyes closed” cases. For the more expansive of these firms, the nuances of suing a government entity may seem simple and straight-forward. However, for others, the various procedural requirements and immunities of a government entity can pose unexpected, and often, unpleasant obstacles. Accordingly, below are five high-level things to keep in mind when suing a government entity.
1. Service and the deadline to respond
Rule 4.2, of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP), outlines clear instructions on who service of a summons and complaint must be made on; sometimes noting multiple delivery points for the perfection of service. Further, unlike the standard 21-day response time, government entities are allotted 45 days to file an answer or other responsive pleading. NRCP 12(a)(2).
2.Statutory naming requirements
Due to sovereign immunity, an individual “department, commission, board or other agency” of the State of Nevada, or its political subdivision, cannot, in and of itself, sue or be sued. NRS 41.031. Similarly, while any “officer or employee” of those entities may sue and be sued, the employing government entity must also be named as a defendant. NRS 41.0337. NRS Chapter 41 provides when, where, and how sovereign immunity has been waived, and what are the requirements for invoking that waiver. A common pitfall of many litigants is the failure to name the State of Nevada, or appropriate political subdivision, “on relation of” the specific department or agency. Craig v. Donnelly, 135 Nev. 37 (Nev. App. 2019). Compliance with this provision is critical, as it invokes the waiver of sovereign immunity and, therefore, a court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter. Failure to comply is fatal to the action.
3. Discretionary act/function immunity
Nevada has adopted “discretionary function” immunity, also known as “discretionary act” immunity, from the federal courts. NRS 41.032; Martinez v. Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433 (2007). Accordingly, government entities are immune from claims based upon acts that are discretionary and policy-driven (i.e., a cause of action for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention).
4. Failure to inspect or discover hazards immunity
Similar to discretionary acts, driven by policy considerations, government entities are immune to claims based upon a failure to inspect or discover—and thereby warn of—hazards. NRS 41.033; Phipps v. City of McGill, 97 Nev. 233 (1981). For such claims to be successful, the entity must have actual or express prior notice of the hazard and fail to remedy the issue within a reasonable time; implied or constructive notice is insufficient. Chastain v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 109 Nev. 1172 (1993).
5. Statutory cap on damages
Finally, when evaluating whether or not to bring a government tort action, plaintiff attorneys should bear in mind that NRS 41.035 caps tort damages at $200,000 “per-person, per-claim.” Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Richardson Const., Inc., 123 Nev. 382 (2007). Further, exemplary or punitive damages are completely barred against a government entity.
About the author
Brandon Mikhail Thompson is a Deputy District Attorney within the Civil Division of the Clark County District Attorney’s Office. His primary assignments are the Departments of Social Services and Community/Affordable Housing; both of which often require him to navigate tort, contract, property, and administrative law at the local, state, and federal levels.
About the article
This article was originally published in the Communiqué (Jan. 2026), the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association. The printed magazine was mailed out to CCBA members 12/30/2025.
The Communiqué (Jan. 2026) focuses on “Five Things” with short articles on interesting topics written by bar members for bar members. Authors were instructed to choose only five things to highlight, to be quick to the point, and to keep the length of their piece to less than 500 words. Also featured is a variety of content from the printed publication’s recurring columns and highlights on bar activities. Select content is available to read online now. See https://clarkcountybar.org/about/member-benefits/communique-2026/communique-jan-2026/.
The articles and advertisements appearing in Communiqué magazine do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CCBA, the CCBA Publications Committee, the editorial board, or the other authors. All legal and other issues discussed are not for the purpose of answering specific legal questions. Attorneys and others are strongly advised to independently research all issues.
© 2026 Clark County Bar Association (CCBA). All rights reserved. No reproduction of any portion of this issue is allowed without written permission from the publisher. Editorial policy available upon request.