Opinion
85066-COA
04-08-2024
BRADFORD ROBERTS, Appellant, v. SHARATH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATOR; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, REAL ESTATE DIVISION, Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
GIBBONS, C.J.
Bradford Roberts appeals from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss his petition for judicial review in a real estate disciplinary matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.
Roberts was a licensed real estate broker and held a property management permit from respondent, the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Real Estate Division (Division). After receiving a complaint about Roberts' brokerage, the Division initiated disciplinary proceedings against him before the Nevada Real Estate Commission (Commission). Following a hearing in the proceedings, which Roberts voluntarily did not attend, the Commission entered an order fining Roberts and revoking his real estate licenses and property management permit.
Roberts subsequently filed a petition for judicial review, naming the Division as respondent in the caption and listing the Commission in the body of the petition under the heading "parties." The Division filed a motion to dismiss, asserting, in relevant part, that the petition failed to name the Commission as a respondent as required by NRS 233B.130(2)(a), and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. Roberts opposed the motion. The district court granted the Division's motion to dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(1), finding it lacked jurisdiction based on Roberts' failure to name the Commission as a respondent. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Roberts argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction because he sufficiently named the Commission as a party in the body of the petition.
We review a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Whitfield v. Nev. State Pers. Comm'n, 137 Nev. 345, 349, 492 P.3d 571, 575 (2021). NRS 233B.130(2)(a) requires petitions for judicial review to "[n]ame as respondents the agency and all parties of record to the administrative proceeding." (Emphasis added.) And as detailed in Whitfield, "a petitioner must name as respondents, within the caption or petition itself, every party of record to the underlying administrative proceedings." 137 Nev. at 349, 492 P.3d at 575. Where the petitioner fails to strictly comply with this requirement, the petition must be dismissed as jurisdictionally defective. Id.,
Here, Roberts mentioned the Commission in his petition under the "parties" heading, but failed to identify it as a respondent. Therefore, pursuant to Whitfield, 137 Nev. at 349, 492 P.3d at 575, he failed to strictly comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(a), and the district court correctly dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Roberts' petition.
Given our resolution of this matter, we need not reach the remaining issues Roberts presents on appeal.
BULLA, J., WESTBROOK, J.
HON. MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT JUDGE
PERSI J. MISHEL, SETTLEMENT JUDGE