Nguyen v. Aldrich
This text of Nguyen v. Aldrich (Nguyen v. Aldrich) 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.
Opinion
ruling on a trial de novo request for an abuse of discretion. Casino Properties, Inc. v. Andrews, 112 Nev. 132, 135-36, 911 P.2d 1181, 1183 (1996). Having reviewed the briefs and appendices on appeal, we conclude that the district court incorrectly dismissed appellant's trial de novo request based on the failure to pay the jury fees. NSTR 4(a)(1) requires the payment of "applicable juror fees." As argued by appellant, he did not seek a jury trial in his request for a trial de novo. Respondent likewise did not file a demand for a jury trial. Therefore, no jury fees were necessary in this proceeding. As there were no "applicable juror fees," appellant was under no obligation to pay for unnecessary jury fees. The same outcome results under the requirements of NSTR 31(b)(1). Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the request for a trial de novo and we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED and we REVERSE AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
J. Saitta
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Donald D. Beury Jazz Aldrich Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A '
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Nguyen v. Aldrich, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nguyen-v-aldrich-nev-2013.