Avila Vs. Sanchez

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 24, 2020
• Docket: 79253
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MARIA AVILA, INDIVIDUALLY, No. 79253 Appellant, VS. ELISEO BICERRA SANCHEZ, AN FILED INDIVIDUAL, JUN 2 4 2020 Res • ondent. ELIZA&Eill A. BROWN CL 8 MyOURT BY titi CLEW

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.' 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 Capannct 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).

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal. 2Because 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 . . . .").

20 -2.,01 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.

c cibrr Parraguirre e

, J. J. Hardesty 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

30ur 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.