Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Maria AVILA, Individually, Appellant, v. Eliseo Bicerra SANCHEZ, an Individual, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a final judgment entered following a jury verdict in a negligence action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kenneth C. Cory, Judge.1
We conclude that the short trial judge was within its discretion in finding that appellant was not a “prevailing party” at the trial de novo and therefore was not entitled to attorney fees and costs.2 See Capanna v. Orth, 134 Nev. 888, 895, 432 P.3d 726, 734 (2018) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion a district court's decision regarding attorney fees and costs). In particular, it was reasonable for the judge to conclude that appellant's proffered definition of “prevailing party” was inconsistent with the purpose of the Nevada Short Trial Program, such that appellant's proffered definition was untenable.3 See Tam v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 792, 800, 358 P.3d 234, 240 (2015) (recognizing that statutes (or here, rules) should be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with “reason and public policy” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.
2. Because appellant's opening brief refers to the abuse-of-discretion standard of review, we apply that standard. Additionally, although appellant argues that she beat respondent's offer of judgment, the short trial judge did not award respondent attorney fees and costs based on the offer of judgment, and appellant has not otherwise coherently explained how the offer of judgment is relevant. We therefore need not consider whether appellant beat the offer. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (“This court's duty is not to render advisory opinions ․”).
3. Our decision in Scott v. Zhou, 120 Nev. 571, 98 P.3d 313 (2004), is distinguishable because in that case, it was the defendant that requested a trial de novo.See id. at 572, 98 P.3d at 313.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 79253
Decided: June 24, 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)