Charles v. Nev. Contractors Bd.

Nevada Supreme Court

Charles v. Nev. Contractors Bd.

DecidedMay 1, 2014

Docket62101

StatusUnpublished

This text of Charles v. Nev. Contractors Bd. (Charles v. Nev. Contractors Bd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles v. Nev. Contractors Bd., (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

that the Board did not have the authority to hold a hearing on the matter and that the Board's hearing was tainted by a conflict of interest involving the Board's outside counsel. He asks this court to reverse and to direct the lower court to issue a writ demanding that the Board pay his judgment. "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnote omitted). This court will decline to issue a writ of mandamus where an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists. Id. We have also recently refused to grant mandamus relief where the government entity at issue has full discretion to decide whether to act. N. Lake Tahoe Fire Prot. Dist. v. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 129 Nev. , , 310 P.3d 583, 590 (2013). In this case, NRS 624.510 grants the Board complete discretion to determine eligibility. The statute provides that an "injured person is eligible . . . if the Board or its designee finds that the injured person suffered actual damages." NRS 624.510(1) (emphasis added). NRS 624.510(4) goes on to state that "Mlle decision of the Board or its designee regarding eligibility for recovery and all related issues is final and not subject to judicial review." NRS 624.510 does not contain any mandatory language demanding that the Board "must" or "shall" compensate any applicants. See NRS 0.025(1)(c)-(d) (defining "must" and "shall," respectively). The only mandate that the Legislature imposed on the Board regarding the account is that the account "must" be used to compensate those who are eligible injured persons. NRS 624.470(4). Yet

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 442to this compensation requirement is contingent upon the Board's discretionary finding of eligibility. See id. The Board was not required to pay Charles's judgment because NRS 624.510 gives the Board discretion to determine eligibility. Charles is not entitled to mandamus relief because the law does not dictate whether the Board must find certain applicants to be eligible. We note that this decision does not leave Charles without any legal recourse: He is still free to enforce his judgment against the contractor through the usual legal processes. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

-16-set Hardesty

Douglas 74% , J.

J.

"We have considered Charles's remaining arguments and conclude that they lack merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge James J. Jimmerson, Settlement Judge David M. Korrey Louis A. Ling Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0, 1947A e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

that the Board did not have the authority to hold a hearing on the matter and that the Board's hearing was tainted by a conflict of interest involving the Board's outside counsel. He asks this court to reverse and to direct the lower court to issue a writ demanding that the Board pay his judgment. "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (footnote omitted). This court will decline to issue a writ of mandamus where an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists. Id. We have also recently refused to grant mandamus relief where the government entity at issue has full discretion to decide whether to act. N. Lake Tahoe Fire Prot. Dist. v. Washoe Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 129 Nev. , , 310 P.3d 583, 590 (2013). In this case, NRS 624.510 grants the Board complete discretion to determine eligibility. The statute provides that an "injured person is eligible . . . if the Board or its designee finds that the injured person suffered actual damages." NRS 624.510(1) (emphasis added). NRS 624.510(4) goes on to state that "Mlle decision of the Board or its designee regarding eligibility for recovery and all related issues is final and not subject to judicial review." NRS 624.510 does not contain any mandatory language demanding that the Board "must" or "shall" compensate any applicants. See NRS 0.025(1)(c)-(d) (defining "must" and "shall," respectively). The only mandate that the Legislature imposed on the Board regarding the account is that the account "must" be used to compensate those who are eligible injured persons. NRS 624.470(4). Yet

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 442to this compensation requirement is contingent upon the Board's discretionary finding of eligibility. See id. The Board was not required to pay Charles's judgment because NRS 624.510 gives the Board discretion to determine eligibility. Charles is not entitled to mandamus relief because the law does not dictate whether the Board must find certain applicants to be eligible. We note that this decision does not leave Charles without any legal recourse: He is still free to enforce his judgment against the contractor through the usual legal processes. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.