Granite Gaming Grp. I, LLC v. the Fremont Experience LLC ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
GRANITE GAMING GROUP I, LLC No. 64549
D/B/A MERMAIDS CASINO, A NEVADA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
GRANITE GAMING GROUP III, LLC
D/B/A LA BAYOU CASINO, A NEVADA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,
Appellants,
FILED
vs. APR 1 1 2016
THE FREMONT STREET TRACIE K. LINCEmAN
EXPERIENCE LLC, A NEVADA CLERFLOF SUPREME COURT
BY
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; DEPUTY CLERK
JEFFREY VICTOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE
FREMONT STREET EXPERIENCE
LLC; GOLDEN GATE CASINO, LLC, A
NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; GOLDEN GATE
EXPERIENCE, INC., A NEVADA
CORPORATION; MARK
BRANDENBURG, AN INDIVIDUAL;
DROCK GAMING, LLC, D/B/A THE D
(F/K/A FITZ AND/OR FITZGERALD'S),
A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; GNLV CORP. D/B/A
GOLDEN NUGGET HOTEL & CASINO,
A NEVADA CORPORATION; FOUR
QUEENS, LLC, D/B/A FOUR QUEENS,
A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY; VINTAGE VEGAS
GAMING, LLC, D/B/A BINION'S
GAMBLING HALL & HOTEL, A
NEVADA CORPORATION; CITY OF
LAS VEGAS; AND CAROLYN
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I997A ae).
GOODMAN, IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MAYOR ONLY AND
NOT IN ANY PERSONAL CAPACITY,
Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion
for a preliminary injunction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge. A district court has discretion in
deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction and its decision "will
be reversed only where the district court abused its discretion or based its
decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of
fact." Boulder Oaks Cmty. Ass'n v. B & J Andrews Enters., LLC, 125 Nev.
397, 403, 215 P.3d 27, 31(2009) (internal quotations omitted). We affirm.
Appellant Granite Gaming Group (Granite Gaming) is suing
respondents in order to prohibit Fremont Street Experience from allowing
its casino members to build outdoor permanent bars that encroach onto
city land. Granite Gaming filed a motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary, injunction. The district court granted the
temporary restraining order, but after an evidentiary hearing, denied the
preliminary injunction on the ground that Granite Gaming had not
demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits. Granite
Gaming appeals.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must
show that it "enjoys a reasonable probability of success on the merits and
that the defendant's conduct, if allowed to continue, will result in
irreparable harm for which compensatory damage is an inadequate
remedy." Dixon v. Thatcher, 103 Nev. 414, 415, 742 P.2d 1029, 1029
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
(1987). "[T]he irreparable harm must be articulated in specific terms by
the issuing order or be sufficiently apparent elsewhere in the record."
Dep't of Conservation and Nat. Res., Div. of Water Res. v. Foley, 121 Nev.
77, 80, 109 P.3d 760, 762 (2005).
The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief based
on its determination that Granite Gaming did not demonstrate a sufficient
probability of success on the merits to warrant an injunction. As
respondents note in their answering brief, we do not need to reach the
likelihood of success on the merits because Granite Gaming failed to show
irreparable harm. See Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414, 418
(8th Cir. 1987) ("The failure to show irreparable harm is, by itself, a
sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunction ....").
Granite Gaming asserts that "[firreparable harm is conclusively presumed
where there is a violation of statute involving the use of land." But
Granite Gaming cites no legal authority for this assertion and therefore,
we will decline to credit it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748
P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant
authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be
addressed by this court.").
Granite Gaming has made no other arguments nor pointed to
any facts showing the threat of irreparable harm. Therefore, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Granite Gaming's motion for
a preliminary injunction. Accordingly we,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
Parraguirre
, J.
Hardesty
J.
J.
Saitta
"The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Justice, is disqualified and did not
participate in the decision of this matter.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(C) 1947A
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Ara H• Shirinian, Settlement Judge
The Jimmerson Law Firm, P.0
Lovato Law Firm, P.C.
Las Vegas City Attorney
Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Little
Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas
Pisanelli Bice, PLLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A mem