Reddy v. Medappeal, Llc ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MARGARET REDDY; MOHAN No. 83763
THALAMARLA; AND MAX GLOBAL,
INC.,
Appellants, FILED
vs.
MEDAPPEAL, LLC, AN ILLINOIS OCT 11 2022
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, CLE
ELFZAFtr
F
A. DR 01.AiN
r.c
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a postjudgment award of attorney fees.
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Adriana Escobar, Judge.'
In a previous appeal, this court affirmed the district court's
decision to grant summary judgment in respondent's favor. See Reddy v.
Medappeal, LLC, No. 83253, 2022 WL 2197101 (Nev. June 17, 2022) (Order
of Affirmance). In doing so, we rejected appellants' argument that
respondent needed to be licensed in Nevada as a limited liability company
(LLC) in order to file the underlying lawsuit. Id. at *2. The basis for our
conclusion was NRS 86.5483(1), which provides that "fflor the purposes of
NRS 86.543 to 86.549, inclusive, the following activities do not constitute
transacting business in this State: [m]aintaining, defending or settling any
proceeding." Id. (quoting NRS 82.5483(1)). In particular, we reasoned that
Iplursuing a legal action appears to fall squarely within this definition, and
appellants do not argue otherwise." Id.
'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
I947A
2Z- 3 2-°-.3)
Now in this appeal, appellants do "argue otherwise." Namely,
they contend that "maintaining" and "commencing" have different
meanings, and that respondent needed to be licensed in Nevada to
"commence" the underlying action.2 We decline to consider this argument,
both because it is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and because it was
not raised in district court.3 See Recontrust Co. v. Zhang, 130 Nev. 1, 7-8,
317 P.3d 814, 818 (2014) ("The law-of-the-case doctrine refers to a family of
rules embodying the general concept that a court involved in later phases
of a lawsuit should not re-open questions decided (i.e., established as law of
the case) by that court or a higher one in earlier phases." (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975)
("The doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed
and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon
the previous proceedings."); see also Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev.
49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (recognizing that this court need not
consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal). Because appellants
2 Appellants also reiterate their argument that a corporation must be
qualified to do business in Nevada as a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit in
Nevada. While appellants' relied-upon authorities support the proposition
that qualification is a prerequisite for a corporation actually doing business
in Nevada, we are not persuaded that those authorities apply to the
respondent LLC that undisputedly did not conduct any business in Nevada.
3In this, we note that respondent relied on NRS 86.5483 in its August
13, 2021, district court filing, such that appellants had multiple
opportunities to contest respondent's position before doing so for the first
time in this appeal. Despite the untimely argument, we deny respondent's
request for sanctions under NRAP 38.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NCVADA
2
(0) I947A 4DID
have not provided any other argument in support of reversing the district
court's attorney fee award,4 we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.5
Parraguirre
J. , Sr.J.
Herndon
cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge
Stephen E. Haberfeld, Settlement Judge
The Wasielewski Law Firm, Ltd.
The Ball Law Group LLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
4To the extent that appellants are challenging the district court's
October 25, 2021, order, we are not persuaded that reversal is warranted.
5The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(€» 1947A