Angel v. Eldorado Casino, Inc. ( 2013 )

 original complaint." See Consolidated Generator v. Cummins Engine, 114
Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (explaining that an
interlocutory order may properly be challenged in the context of an appeal
from a final judgment).
"A district court order granting an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to
dismiss is subject to rigorous appellate review." Sanchez v. Wal-Mart
Stores, 125 Nev. 818, 823, 221 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2009). In reviewing the
dismissal order, we accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, and
dismissal will be deemed improper if the allegations are "legally sufficient
to constitute the elements of the claim asserted." Id. Moreover, "we must
look at the substance of the claims, not just the labels used in
the. . . complaint." Nevada Power Co. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 948, 960, 102
P.3d 578, 586 (2004).
Here, the district court dismissed appellant's complaint based
on the fact that appellant cited to various statutes pertaining to criminal
liability and a constitutional provision safeguarding against unlawful
searches and seizures, which applies to state actors. When these citations
are disregarded, however, see id., and when the factual allegations in
appellant's complaint are accepted as true, the allegations were legally
sufficient to constitute the elements of intentional tort claims for either
malicious prosecution or false imprisonment 2 and for battery, for which
'Accordingly, we do not address the district court's decision to strike
appellant's amended complaint.
2 Tothe extent that respondent was unsure of the cause of action
being alleged in Count 1 of appellant's complaint, respondent could have
moved for a more definitive statement, see NRCP 12(e), rather than
immediately moving for dismissal. By not addressing the issues raised in
appellant's proper person appeal statement, respondent failed to provide
continued on next page...
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
appellant sought, among other relief, compensation and punitive damages.
Sanchez, 125 Nev. at 823, 221 P.3d at 1280. Accordingly, dismissal was
improper, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
J.
J.
cc: Second Judicial District Court, Department 8
Randall George Angel
McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno
Washoe District Court Clerk
...continued
us with any argument regarding why the district court's dismissal order
should be affirmed. Our independent research has revealed no authority
to support the premise that citing to a criminal statute or constitutional
provision somehow negates the validity of a complaint's remaining factual
allegations.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I 947A