Nanyah Vegas, LLC v. Rogich ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
NANYAH VEGAS, LLC, A NEVADA No. 66823
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
Appellant,
vs.
FILED
SIG ROGICH A/K/A SIGMUND
FEB 1 2 2016
ROGICH AS TRUSTEE OF THE
ROGICH FAMILY IRREVOCABLE
TRUST; AND ELDORADO HILLS, LLC,
A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY,
Resnondents.
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is an appeal from a district court final judgment in a
contract action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nancy L.
Allf, Judge.
Appellant argues that the district court erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of respondent Eldorado Hills, LLC, based on a
finding that appellant's unjust enrichment claim was time-barred under
the four-year statute of limitations. According to appellant, the statute of
limitations did not begin to run until appellant became aware that it
would not be repaid and that it owned no interest in Eldorado Hills.
Having considered the parties' arguments and appendices, we conclude
that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on statute-of-
limitations grounds. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d
1026, 1029 (2005) (holding that this court reviews summary judgments de
novo and that summary judgment is only appropriate if the pleadings and
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e
other evidence on file, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party, demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact remains in
dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law); Oak Grove Inu'rs v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616, 623, 668 P.2d
1075, 1079 (1983) (placing the burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact as to when a party discovered or should
have discovered the facts underlying a claim on the party seeking
summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds), disapproved on
other grounds by Calloway v. City of Reno, 116 Nev. 250, 993 P.2d 1259
(2000).
Appellant's claim for unjust enrichment did not accrue until
Eldorado Hills retained $1.5 million under circumstances where it was
inequitable for Eldorado Hills to do so. See Certified Fire Prot. Inc. v.
Precision Constr., 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 35, 283 P.3d 250, 257 (2012) ("Unjust
enrichment exists when the plaintiff confers a benefit on the defendant,
the defendant appreciates such benefit, and there is acceptance and
retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that
it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of
the value thereof'). As Eldorado Hills failed to demonstrate that no
genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the limitations
period on appellant's unjust enrichment claim commenced when Eldorado
Hills received the $1.5 million or at a later date when Eldorado Hills
allegedly failed to issue a membership interest to appellant or to repay the
money as a loan, the district court erred in granting summary judgment
based on the expiration of the statute of limitation. Oak Grove Inv'rs, 99
Nev. at 623, 668 P.2d at 1079; see NRS 11.190(2)(c) (setting a four year
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19474 el,
statute of limitation for "[a]n action upon a contract, obligation or liability
not founded upon an instrument in writing"). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
, C.J.
Parraguirre
, J.
Douglas
Cherry
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge
McDonald Law Offices, PLLC
Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A