Hrpv v. Nevada Property 1 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  motion to reconsider and to vacate the arbitrator's award, which the
    district court denied. This appeal followed.
    The district court did not err in confirming the award and
    denying appellant's motion to vacate it. Appellant did not demonstrate
    that the arbitrator overlooked statutory requirements or manifestly
    disregard the law in denying appellant's claim to rescind the contract and
    awarding damages to respondent.       Health Plan of Nev., Inc. v. Rainbow
    Med., LLC, 
    120 Nev. 689
    , 695, 
    100 P.3d 172
    , 176-77 (2004) (providing that
    an arbitration award will only be reversed if there is a statutory ground
    for reversal or the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law). Respondent
    complied with the statutory disclosure requirements and while
    respondent's strict compliance with NRS 116.4118, NRS 116.4119, NRS
    116.12065, and NRS 116B.300 is less clear, because there is a colorable
    argument that respondent either substantially complied with these
    statutes or that any noncompliance does not warrant rescission, reversal
    is not warranted on this ground. Health 
    Plan, 120 Nev. at 698
    , 100 P.3d
    at 178 (explaining that if there is a colorable justification for the outcome,
    the arbitration award will be confirmed).
    Further, the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law or
    the contract in concluding that there was no material difference in the way
    the Cosmopolitan was constructed or that there was no unreasonable
    delay in the construction. Clark Cnty. Sch. Din. v. Rolling Plains Constr.,
    Inc., 
    117 Nev. 101
    , 104, 
    16 P.3d 1079
    , 1081 (2001) (providing that this
    court reviews de novo a district court's application of the manifest
    disregard standard). Additionally the arbitrator did not disregard the
    contractual requirement that appellant have an opportunity to inspect the
    unit prior to closing because respondent provided appellant with such an
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) I947A    e
    opportunity    
    Id. Lastly, the
    arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the
    law in calculating damages. 
    Id. Accordingly, we
                                     ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    Saitta
    AtkuusAti f             J.
    Pickering
    cc:   Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
    John Walter Boyer, Settlement Judge
    Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
    Mont E. Tanner
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A    el.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 63496

Filed Date: 7/31/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/11/2015