From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Avila v. Sanchez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jun 24, 2020
No. 79253 (Nev. Jun. 24, 2020)

Opinion

No. 79253

06-24-2020

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.

Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.

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. 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. 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

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 . . . .").

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.

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, J.

Parraguirre /s/_________, J.
Hardesty /s/_________, J.
Cadish cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge

Kristine M. Kuzemka, Settlement Judge

Bowen Law Offices

Robert L. Cardwell & Associates

Mountain Vista Law Group LLC

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Avila v. Sanchez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jun 24, 2020
No. 79253 (Nev. Jun. 24, 2020)
Case details for

Avila v. Sanchez

Case Details

Full title:MARIA AVILA, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant, v. ELISEO BICERRA SANCHEZ, AN…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Jun 24, 2020

Citations

No. 79253 (Nev. Jun. 24, 2020)