Dixson v. City of North Las Vegas ( 2015 )

 duty of fair representation. The district court dismissed the suit, holding
that appellants did not have standing to enforce the agreements and that
the complaint should have been brought to the Employee-Management
Relations Board. Appellants appealed. For the following reasons, we
affirm.
Standing is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.
Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 29, 252 P.3d 206, 208
(2011). We have previously concluded that a unionized employee lacks
standing to appeal the outcome of negotiated grievance procedures when a
collective bargaining agreement expressly provides that the union is the
party responsible for filing a grievance and pursing arbitration. Ruiz v.
City of N. Las Vegas, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 20, 255 P.3d 216, 219 & n.3
(2011). Similarly, appellants in this case would generally lack standing to
enforce the agreements because they are not parties to the agreements.
Although we have recognized that a third-party beneficiary is
capable of enforcing an agreement to which they are not a party, Hartford
Fire Ins. Co. v. Ti's. of Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Trust,
125 Nev. 149, 156, 208 P.3d 884, 889 (2009), appellants' complaints failed
to allege that they were third-party beneficiaries. See NRCP 8(a) (stating
that a complaint "shall contain" a statement of the pleader's claim for
relief). Nor did appellants' complaints allege that the memorandum of
understanding or collective bargaining agreement was intended to benefit
them or that their reliance on those agreements was foreseeable. See
Lipshie v. Tracy Inv. Co., 93 Nev. 370, 379-80, 566 P.2d 819, 824-25 (1977)
(concluding that an intended third-party beneficiary must show that the
parties to the contract clearly intended to benefit the third party and that
the third party's reliance on the contract was foreseeable).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A es.
Thus, for the reasons discussed, we conclude that the district
court did not err in dismissing appellants' suit. Appellants lacked
standing.' Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Sat\ , C.J.
Hardesty
P
Parraguirre .
J.
J.
Saitta
J.
Gibbons
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge
Law Office of Daniel Marks
North Las Vegas City Attorney
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Because we affirm the dismissal of appellants' action on standing
grounds, we need not address appellants' remaining arguments.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e