About Justice Law NV

With more wins than losses, attorney Mandana Divanbeiki zealously advocates for her clients and litigates cases administratively and in Nevada courts. She is very detail-oriented, ethical, and organized. She paints a story that best represents her clients and does it all without lying or making up evidence. Her game is telling the truth in a way that allows the decision-makers to make proper and fair decisions. She attempts to simplify complex legal concepts to the best of her ability so that better decisions can be made with more favorable outcomes for her clients. Although a win is never a guarantee, likelihood of success may be assessed for individual cases. Welcome and please fill out the form below if you are seeking representation for your case. 

CONTRACT DISPUTES AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

Any type of agreement could be a contract and even some promises can be actionable if left unfulfilled. If any agreement you made in writing or with words was not honored, you may have a claim or a defense, depending on your case. 

A contract can be: a lease, a contract for sale, home repairs, remodeling, real estate, an agreement to buy, to sell, to do maintenance, to clean, etc. 

In many situations, property rights and contractual disputes go hand in hand. Not every contractual term is enforceable for many reasons - terms could be against statutes, laws and regulations, and even at times policies. Nevada laws generally uphold agreements that you knowingly entered into and you always have a duty to read before you sign documents. However, there are at times many defenses that the courts will also consider and apply depending on your particular situation. 

More to come... 

I have secured numerous favorable outcomes for clients, from court victories to administrative appeals. Request consultation if you are looking for representation in your case. 

Nevada Court of Appeals - Victory in Taylor: 

Taylor v. State Employment Security Division,  2025 Nev. App. (Unpublished Disposition) LEXIS 98. 

Taylor became unemployed during the COVID-19 pandemic, applied for UI benefits and received benefits. However, DETR  requested the benefits back and Taylor appealed. After years of administrative decisions and litigation in Nevada district and appellate courts, the Nevada Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Taylor. 

The Court of Appeals also for the first time set the burden of proof in administrative hearings in unemployment cases for claimants (Taylor) as preponderance of evidence. 

The Court then explained procedure and evidence in administrative hearings, as explained in NRS 612, as more relaxed to help pro se litigants such as Taylor. 

As to credibility, the Court pulled support from Benes, where the Court's decision also favored Benes, a claimant in a similar position. The Court explained that even though credibility is determined by a referee, any credibility determination must still be based on substantial evidence and made for appropriate legal reasons. 

Benes v. State Employment Security Division, 2024 Nev. App. (Unpublished Disposition)LEXIS 186. 

Eighth Judicial District Court Victories: 

Martinez was a real estate agent who had lost revenue during the pandemic. The Court reversed DETR's decision and allowed Martinez to keep those benefits. 

Many other claimants' rights to keep the benefits they had received during the COVID-19 pandemic were restored by litigating the cases in the Second and Eighth Judicial District Courts. Each victory had unique issues and the attorney conducted tireless research and worked with clients to make sure the courts had all the facts and evidence prior to making a final decision. The attorney's zealous advocacy often led to favorable court outcomes, and even in some cases, to  DETR (different authorities and attorneys) itself agreeing and stipulating to allow for claimants' recoveries. 

Nevada Justice Courts - Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson: 

Bench Trials: 

Mobile Home tenant accused of owing tens of thousands of dollars received favorable outcome and did not owe anything. 

Tenant accused of causing damage to property whose security deposit was held and she was to pay more to landlord for unfounded fees received favorable outcome on appeal to the Eighth Judicial District Court in being entitled to her security deposit. 

Hearings and Appeals: 

Tenant being evicted for no cause was not evicted as the no-cause eviction was pretextual where landlord's eviction attempt was for unfounded rent where landlord had received rent. 

Tenant accused of causing mold in the property and accused of abandoning property won favorable outcomes in court when the attorney appealed the case, the higher court required evidentiary hearing where the tenant won at that hearing, and the attorney also had the tenant's tens of thousands of dollars owing with interest accruing on his credit dismissed.