Luckett v. Boyd Gaming Corp. C/W 64667/65224

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: May 20, 2015
• Docket: 64667
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

demonstrate the necessary elements of a claim for relief so that the defending party has adequate notice of the nature of the claim and relief sought"); see NRS 118A.510 (noting the requirements for a retaliatory eviction claim); NRCP 9(b) (requiring that claims for fraud must be stated with particularity); May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2005) (stating that an enforceable contract requires an offer and acceptance, meeting of the minds, and consideration); PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 615, 630-31, 895 P.2d 1269, 1279 (1995) (recognizing that to sustain an invasion of privacy, claim a plaintiff must actually expect solitude or seclusion, and that expectation must be objectively reasonable); Nelson v. City of Las Vegas, 99 Nev. 548, 555, 665 P.2d 1141, 1145 (1983) (setting forth the required elements for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim); Lied v. Clark Cnty., 94 Nev. 275, 279, 579 P.2d 171, 173-74 (1978) (requiring that a property right must be shown to have been invaded to sustain a trespass action). We further affirm the district court's grant of attorney fees and costs to respondent, including those attorney fees awarded on the basis that appellant failed to appear at multiple hearings on appellant's own motions. Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9, 319 P.3d 606, 615 (2014). It is so ORDERED.

C‘l—ftraffe"m ' j. Parraguirre

J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1907A cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge John Luckett Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF 3 NEVADA

(0) 1947A ce