KARÍN RODRIGUEZ v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS JACKIE RODGERS LORENA PORTILLO AND SCOTT BLACK (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This appeal challenges a district court order dismissing a declaratory relief action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Jacqueline M. Bluth, Judge.

Respondent Scott Black currently serves as Councilperson for Ward 3 on the City of North Las Vegas City Council. Black's current term ends on November 30, 2026, at which time Black will have served on the North Las Vegas City Council for approximately nine and one-half years. In March 2026, Black filed a Declaration of Candidacy announcing his intention to run for Mayor of North Las Vegas in the 2026 election. Appellant Karín Rodriguez filed a complaint seeking to remove Black from the ballot due to term limit restrictions. The complaint requested the court to declare that, pursuant to Lorton v. Jones, 130 Nev. 51, 322 P.3d 1051 (2014), the time spent as a council member for the City of North Las Vegas must be combined with time spent as Mayor for term-limit purposes. After a hearing, the district court found that because Black had not yet served 12 years, Black was “not constitutionally prohibited from running for the office of Mayor” and thus, the court did not need to consider whether the time spent in the council member and mayoral positions aggregate.

On appeal, Rodriguez does not challenge the district court's determination that Black is not term-limited from running for mayor. Rather, Rodriguez argues the district court improperly declined to grant declaratory relief and decide the question of whether the time spent in the city council member and mayoral positions aggregate for term-limit purposes. “Declaratory relief is available only if: (1) a justiciable controversy exists between persons with adverse interests, (2) the party seeking declaratory relief has a legally protectable interest in the controversy, and (3) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.” Cnty. of Clark ex rel. Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 752, 961 P.2d 754, 756 (1998). We have often cautioned that we will not render advisory opinions, Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010), and will only decide actual controversies where there are adverse parties and the issues are ripe. Boulet v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613, 614 P.2d 8, 9 (1980).

Here, we conclude the district court properly determined that Rodriguez's request for declaratory relief was not ripe. See Knittle v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 112 Nev. 8, 11, 908 P.2d 724, 726 (1996) (affirming dismissal of a declaratory relief claim because it did not present “a justiciable controversy ripe for declaratory relief”). As in Knittle, here, Rodriguez's request “would have placed the trial court in the position of trying to guess” and apply hypothetical future facts. Id. at 11, 908 P.2d at 726 (quoting Boyle v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 866 P.2d 595 (Utah Ct. App. 1993)). It is undisputed at this point that Black is not yet term-limited from running for office. Rodriguez thus asks for a decision on the aggregation issue based on potential future events evaluated under the current city charter, which may be irrelevant when and if those future events occur given that the charter can be amended. That would be a purely advisory opinion. We conclude the district court properly declined Rodriguez's request for declaratory relief on the aggregation issue. See Upchurch, 114 Nev. at 752, 961 P.2d at 756 (“[W]hether a determination in an action for declaratory judgment is proper is a matter for the district court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the district court abused that discretion.”). Based on the foregoing, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Herndon, C.J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.

Cadish, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

Lee, J.