Falconi v. Corazon Real Estate

Nevada Supreme Court

Falconi v. Corazon Real Estate

DecidedApril 12, 2013

Docket62296

StatusUnpublished

This text of Falconi v. Corazon Real Estate (Falconi v. Corazon Real Estate) 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

Falconi v. Corazon Real Estate, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Sunde v. Contel of California, 112 Nev. 541, 542-43, 915 P.2d 298, 299 (1996) (explaining that nonlawyers may not represent entities in court); Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1336, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (1994) (observing that no statute or rule permits a nonlawyer to represent an entity and concluding that an entity cannot proceed in proper person). As we do not allow laypersons to represent parties or entities and business entities are not permitted to appear or file documents in proper person, respondent's answer and all other motions and documents filed in the district court by respondent were improper and should have been stricken by the district court. Stu's Bail Bonds, 115 Nev.at 436 n.1, 991 P.2d at 470 n.1; Sunde, 112 Nev. at 542-43, 915 P.2d at 299; Salman, 110 Nev. at 1336, 885 P.2d at 608. Respondent's motion to dismiss was, therefore, also improperly considered by the district court and the district court erred in considering and granting the motion. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.'

/ de sty

Parraguirre

C 11,24 Cherry

"In light of this order, we deny as moot appellant's December 19, 2012, proper person motion. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A m3(t_111 cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Alexander Falconi Corazon Real Estate Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

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

Sunde v. Contel of California, 112 Nev. 541, 542-43, 915 P.2d 298, 299 (1996) (explaining that nonlawyers may not represent entities in court); Salman v. Newell, 110 Nev. 1333, 1336, 885 P.2d 607, 608 (1994) (observing that no statute or rule permits a nonlawyer to represent an entity and concluding that an entity cannot proceed in proper person). As we do not allow laypersons to represent parties or entities and business entities are not permitted to appear or file documents in proper person, respondent's answer and all other motions and documents filed in the district court by respondent were improper and should have been stricken by the district court. Stu's Bail Bonds, 115 Nev.at 436 n.1, 991 P.2d at 470 n.1; Sunde, 112 Nev. at 542-43, 915 P.2d at 299; Salman, 110 Nev. at 1336, 885 P.2d at 608. Respondent's motion to dismiss was, therefore, also improperly considered by the district court and the district court erred in considering and granting the motion. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.'