Cash Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Tg Inv., LLC ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CASH ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, A No. 65104
NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; LLG HOLDINGS, LLC, A
NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; MUSTANG MEMORIES,
LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; CASH PROCESSING
FILED
SERVICES, LLC; AND NORTHERN APR 1 5 2016
NEVADA FUNDING, LLC, A NEVADA
T
RRKkG
iCIESKii.pLRNDvmAN
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BCyl_ssi
E
EME COURT
Appellants, DEPUTY CLERK
vs.
TG INVESTMENTS, LLC, A NEVADA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRIVANCE
This is an appeal from a district court judgment• after a jury
verdict in a contract and real property action. First Judicial District
Court, Storey County; James E. Wilson, Judge.
Respondent TG Investments, LLC (TGI) loaned appellant
Cash Asset Management, LLC (CAM) $2,250,000 so that CAM could open
and operate a brothel in Storey County. The loan was secured by a deed of
trust on the real property where the brothel was located and required
CAM to maintain a license for the brothel, fight any revocation of the
license, and pay TGI interest including a percentage of the gross revenues.
CAM stopped paying TGI the interest, and TGI filed the underlying
action. While the action was pending, a Storey County ordinance
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
1(0 - M 88 8
governing brothels was amended and the Storey County Brothel Licensing
Board revoked the brothel's license. A jury found that CAM breached the
contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Based on the
jury's verdict, the district court entered a judgment against CAM finding
that it owed TGI $1,909,378.67 and ordered the encumbered real property
sold with the proceeds to be applied to CAM's debt to TGI. CAM filed
motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to alter or
amend the judgment, which were all denied. This appeal followed.
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that the district court properly denied CAM's original
and renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law. See Nelson v. Heer,
123 Nev. 217, 222-23, 163 P.3d 420, 424 (2007) (explaining that this court
views the evidence and all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and
reviews de novo an order denying a motion for judgment as a matter of
law). CAM admitted that it breached the contract by acknowledging that
it owed TGI $26,861 in underpaid interest and by conceding at trial that it
failed to appeal the license revocation. Further, the jury could draw
reasonable inferences from the evidence offered that CAM failed to fight
the revocation of the license and that CAM influenced the amendment of
the brothel ordinance and sought the revocation of the license in an effort
to void its obligations to TGI. Thus, there was sufficient evidence
supporting the jury's verdict that CAM breached the contract and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying CAM's motion for a new trial because there was no irregularity in
the proceedings, the jury did not manifestly disregard the jury
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A e
instructions, and the damages were not excessive. See Bayerische Motoren
Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Roth, 127 Nev. 122, 133, 252 P.3d 649, 657
(2011) (explaining that this court reviews the denial of a motion for a new
trial for an abuse of discretion). While TGI elicited testimony concerning
the appropriateness of the brothel license revocation, because such
testimony was relevant to show arguments that CAM could have made if
it had challenged the revocation, TGI did not make collateral attacks on
the brothel ordinance or the Storey County Brothel Licensing Board's
revocation of the license. Further, because there was no evidence that if
TGI had applied for a brothel license, the brothel's license would not have
been revoked, it was possible for the jury to reach its verdict while
applying the jury instruction concerning mitigation of damages. See Price
v. Sinnott, 85 Nev. 600, 606, 460 P.2d 837, 840 (1969) (providing that a
new trial is unwarranted when it is possible for the jurors to reach the
verdict that they reached after properly applying all jury instructions to
the evidence presented at trial). Also, the damages awarded were not
excessive as they were less than the amount of damages presented by one
of the expert accountants.
Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying CAM's motion to alter or amend the judgment's order for the sale
of the property securing the debt. See AA Primo Builders, LLC v.
Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589, 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) (explaining
that this court reviews an order denying a motion to alter or amend a
judgment for an abuse of discretion). TGI only pursued one action, the
underlying action, to recover the debts owed to it by CAM. And after the
jury found that CAM had breached the contract and the covenant of good
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
faith and fair dealing and established the amount of CAM's debt, the court
properly ordered the property sold under NRS 40.430 (2013) to satisfy the
debt. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
\ J.
Douglas
Cherry
Ckarvcv ,J.
bons
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Debbie Leonard, Settlement Judge
Gunderson Law Firm
Law Offices of Mark Wray
Storey County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1 1447A