Findlay Management Group v. Jenkins

 for fraud, and $250,000 for civil conspiracy. The district court entered its
judgment on the jury's verdict. Findlay appealed the district court's order,
alleging that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict
on the issues of civil conspiracy and fraud. Jenkins cross-appealed,
alleging that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award
attorney fees and special damages.
There was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the civil
conspiracy claim
"When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, this
court determines whether, after viewing all inferences in favor of the
prevailing party, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict." J.J.
Indus., LLC v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 269, 273, 71 P.3d 1264, 1267 (2003). A
cause of action for "civil conspiracy arises where two or more persons
undertake some concerted action with the intent to accomplish an
unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another, and damage
results." Guilfoyle v. Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., 130 Nev., Adv.
Op. 78, 335 P.3d 190, 198 (2014) (internal quotations omitted). "Thus, a
plaintiff must provide evidence of an explicit or tacit agreement between
the alleged conspirators" for the purpose of harming the plaintiff. Id.
The evidence submitted in this case, when viewed with all
inferences in favor of Jenkins, does not support a finding that LVAL had
intent to harm Jenkins. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to
support the jury's verdict of civil conspiracy.'
'Because there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict
on the civil conspiracy claim, we do not reach the issue of whether the
jury's award of damages for that claim was duplicative or excessive as a
matter of law.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ero
There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the fraud
claim
To prove fraud by inducement, a plaintiff "must prove by clear
and convincing evidence each of the following elements": (1) a false
representation made by a party, (2) knowledge or belief by the party that
the representation was false, or knowledge that it had an insufficient basis
for making the representation, (3) intent to induce another party to
consent to the contract's formation, (4) the other party justifiably relied
upon the misrepresentation, and (5) damage to the other party resulted.
J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 290,
89 P.3d 1009, 1018 (2004).
The evidence submitted in this case, when viewed with all
inferences in favor of Jenkins, supports a finding that the elements of
fraud were met. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the
jury's verdict of fraud.
The district court abused its discretion by refusing to award attorney fees
without stating a basis for its denial
"The decision to award attorney fees is within the sound
discretion of the district court and will not be overturned absent a
manifest abuse of discretion." Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray, 121 Nev. 464,
479, 117 P.3d 227, 238 (2005) (internal quotations omitted). However, it
‘`constitutes an abuse of discretion for a court to give no reason for its
refusal to award fees." Pandelis Constr. Co. v. Jones-Viking Assocs., 103
Nev. 129, 132, 734 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1987).
Here, the district court abused •its discretion by denying
Findlay's motion for attorney fees without stating a basis for its denial.
Therefore, we remand this case to the district court with directions to
either award attorney fees or state its reasons for refusing to do so.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award special
damages under NRS 41.1395
NRS 41.1395 authorizes a vulnerable person who suffers a
personal injury or a loss of money or property caused by exploitation to
recover double damages and, under certain circumstances, attorney fees
and costs. NRS 41.1395(1), (2). Special damages must be specifically
pleaded. NRCP 9(g); Horgan v. Felton, 123 Nev. 577, 586 n.26, 170 P.3d
982, 988 n.26 (2007).
Here, Jenkins did not specifically plead double damages and
attorney fees under NRS 41.1395 in his complaint. Therefore, the district
court properly refused to award them.
Conclusion
There was insufficient evidence submitted in this case to
support the jury's verdict of civil conspiracy. Furthermore, the district
court abused its discretion by refusing to award attorney fees without
stating a basis for its denial. We therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A COW
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Pico Rosenberger
The Wasielewski Law Firm, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A 404