Pettit v. Management Guidance, Inc.

603 P.2d 697, 95 Nev. 834, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 674
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 11, 1979
DocketNo. 10914
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 603 P.2d 697 (Pettit v. Management Guidance, Inc.) 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
Pettit v. Management Guidance, Inc., 603 P.2d 697, 95 Nev. 834, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 674 (Neb. 1979).

Opinion

[835]*835OPINION

Per Curiam:

Pursuant to NRS 80.210,1 the district court dismissed respondent’s complaint for damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract on the grounds that respondent, a California corporation, had not, at the time of the commencement of the suit, qualified to do business in Nevada. The district court, aware that the relevant statute of limitations, see NRS 11.190(1 )(b), had not run and aware that respondent corporation was in the process of effecting compliance with NRS 80.010 et seq, Nevada’s qualifying statutes, ordered the dismissal to be without prejudice. Cf. League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe R.P.A., 93 Nev. 270, 563 P.2d 582 (1977) (prejudice will adhere to dismissal of unqualified foreign corporation’s suit when relevant statute of limitations has run).

Appellant, the prevailing party below, seeks reversal of that decision, contending that the dismissal should have been with prejudice. Appellant does not claim to have been injured or prejudiced by respondent’s failure to qualify, but simply argues that the penalty provisions of NRS 80.210 cannot be cured by subsequent statutory compliance. We do not agree.

Strictly construing NRS 80.210 in order “not to limit the rights of [foreign] corporations beyond the plain import of the language used in the statute,” we have permitted a foreign corporation to intervene in an action even though it had not complied with Nevada’s qualifying statutes until after the commencement of the suit. Lawler v. Ginochio, 94 Nev. 623, 625, 584 P.2d 667, 668 (1978), quoting Scott v. Day-Bristol Consolidated Mining Co., 37 Nev. 299, 303, 142 P. 625, 626 (1914). We see no reason to distinguish Lawler from the instant case.

The order of the district court dismissing respondent’s complaint without prejudice is, therefore, affirmed.

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

Related

Atlantic Commercial Development Corp. v. Boyles
732 P.2d 1360 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1987)
Williams v. Wolff
517 F. Supp. 925 (D. Nevada, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
603 P.2d 697, 95 Nev. 834, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettit-v-management-guidance-inc-nev-1979.