Bingham & Snow Nevada, Pc v. Dist. Ct. (Prem. Prop's of Mesquite, LLC)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 9, 2015
• Docket: 66364
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

908 P.2d 705, 706 (1995). Thus, Bingham & Snow properly brings a writ petition to challenge the district court's denial of its motion to adjudicate. We consider two issues raised in the writ petition and answer: (1) whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Bingham & Snow's motion to adjudicate and (2) whether Bingham & Snow's attorney's lien was enforceable. We review these issues de novo. Leventhal v. Black & LoBello, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 50, 305 P.3d 907, 910 (2013) (stating that we review de novo the construction of the statute authorizing an attorney's charging lien); Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 531, 216 P.3d 779, 782 (2009) (stating that we review de novo the district court's jurisdiction to resolve an attorney's lien dispute). The district court had jurisdiction to consider Bingham & Snow's motion Premier argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Bingham & Snow's motion to adjudicate the attorney's lien. After a final judgment is entered, "the district court retains jurisdiction to consider collateral matters." Emerson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 61, 263 P.3d 224, 229 (2011). The adjudication of an attorney's lien is a collateral matter over which the district court has incidental jurisdiction because its enforceability arises from the underlying litigation but does not directly concern the merits of the case. See Argentena, 125 Nev. at 532-33, 216 P.3d at 783. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction to consider Bingham & Snow's motion to adjudicate the attorney's lien.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1447A e The attorney's lien was unenforceable because it was not perfected Bingham & Snow argues that it perfected its attorney's lien by serving a notice of the lien on an attorney who represented Premier and another party in the underlying litigation. NRS 18.015 establishes the requirements for an attorney's charging lien. In relevant part, this statute provides that lain attorney perfects a lien. . . by serving notice in writing. . . upon the party against whom the client has a cause of action." NRS 18.015(3). Notice provided to an attorney with regard to one client cannot be imputed to a different client and does not create a duty for the attorney to determine whether the notice is relevant to another client's interests. See In re Perle, 725 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2013); Maldonado v. Ramirez, 757 F.2d 48, 51 (3d Cir. 1985); Bayne v. Jenkins, 593 S.W.2d 519, 533 (Mo. 1980); Ross v. Mayflower Drug Stores, 12 A.2d 569, 571 (Pa. 1940); Secord v. Chrysler Corp., 292 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). Premier was a party against whom Bingham & Snow's client had a cause of action in the underlying litigation. Therefore, Bingham & Snow had a duty to serve Premier with notice of the attorney's lien. When serving the notice of its attorney's lien on the attorney who represented Premier and the other party, Bingham & Snow produced a certificate of service that identified that the notice was for the other party and did not indicate that it was for Premier. The record does not suggest that Bingham & Snow otherwise attempted to serve notice of the attorney's lien on Premier. Thus, by not serving Premier, Bingham &

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) E947A Snow failed to perfect the attorney's lien. As a result, the district court properly denied Bingham & Snow's motion to adjudicate.' Therefore, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

,44.A , C.J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

J. Douglas

Saitta

'In light of Bingham & Snow's failure to perfect the attorney's lien, we decline to address the remaining issues raised by the petition and answer, including whether service of a party's attorney would fulfill NRS 18.015(3)'s notice requirement and whether various parties in the underlying litigation had standing to contest the attorney's lien.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A cetlin cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Bingham Snow & Caldwell Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A S.