Cuomo v. Deluca & Associates, P.C. ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JODY CUOMO, No. 66484
Appellant,
vs.
DELUCA & ASSOCIATES, P.C., A FILED
DOMESTIC PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION; AND ANTHONY J. JAN 15 2016
DELUCA, ESQ., INDIVIDUALLY, TRACE K. LINDEMAN
CLERK•pf SyPREME COURT
Respondents. BY /1 1a
.24
DEPUTY CLERK
r-
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion
to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment in a legal
malpractice action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael
Villani, Judge.
Causation of damages is a required element of each of the
claims alleged in appellant's complaint. See Stalk v. Mushkin, 125 Nev.
21, 29, 199 P.3d 838, 844 (2009) (holding that a claim for breach of
fiduciary duty that arises out of the attorney-client relationship is a legal
malpractice claim); Clark CV. Sch. Dist. v. Richardson Constr., 123 Nev.
382, 396, 168 P.3d 87, 96 (2007) (stating that causation is an essential
element of a claim for breach of contract); Day v. Zubel, 112 Nev. 972, 976,
922 P.2d 536, 538 (1996) (identifying causation as one of the required
elements for a legal malpractice claim). Having reviewed the parties'
briefs and appendices, we conclude that the district court did not err.
Whether viewed under the NRCP 12(b)(5) or NRCP 56 standard, the
district court properly granted respondents' motion because there was no
set of facts that would entitle appellant to relief as the bankruptcy court
had previously determined that the Ritchie Debt was nondischargeable
under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) due to the fact of appellant's fraud in
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e 140 - 01 ,50 1-1
procuring the loan.' See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev.
224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008); Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev.
724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Thus, the district court determined
that appellant could not prove that respondents' failure to list the debt on
appellant's bankruptcy schedule caused the Ritchie Debt to be not
discharged. 2 As we perceive no error in the district court's determination,
we conclude that the district court properly granted appellant's motion to
dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Buzz Stew, 124 Nev.
at 227-28, 181 P.3d at 672; Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
-
Hardesty
J.
Saitta
lAlthough appellant requested that the district court deny
respondents' motion under NRCP 56(f) to allow appellant to conduct
deposition, appellant failed to meet the requirements of the statute to
obtain such relief. NRCP 56(f); Choy v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., 127 Nev.,
Adv. Op. 78, 265 P.3d 698, 700 (2011).
2Appellantargues that the district court improperly took judicial
notice of the bankruptcy court's order and related filings, but because
appellant did not object to respondents' motion for judicial notice,
appellant has waived this issue on appeal. Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown,
97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) ("A point not urged in trial
court . . . is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on
appeal.").
light of this order, we need not address the parties' remaining
3 In
arguments.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cep
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
Thomas J. Tanksley, Settlement Judge
Eglet Prince
Keating Law Group
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1907A