Carlini v. Richland Holdings

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 31, 2015
• Docket: 63020
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

issues de novo, looking to the language of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances"). Appellant further contends that respondent lacked standing to file the underlying action. The record on appeal demonstrates, however, that Najjar assigned her interest in the contract to respondent, and thus, we conclude that respondent had standing to file the action. See Easton Bus. Opportunities, Inc. v. Town Exec. Suites-E. Marketplace, LLC, 126 Nev. 119, 124, 230 P.3d 827, 830 (2010) (recognizing that a contract "is assignable unless assignment materially changes the terms of the contract or the contract expressly precludes assignment"). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

Saitta

Atieu Cup J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge Trent Carlini Bowen Law Offices Eighth District Court Clerk

'We conclude that appellant's additional arguments lack merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cep