Saticoy Bay, LLC v. Sunrise Ridge Master Homeowners Association, 011521 NVSC, 80204

Docket Nº80204
Party NameSATICOY BAY, LLC, SERIES 3984 MEADOW FOXTAIL DRIVE, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. SUNRISE RIDGE MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A NEVADA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION; AND NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Respondents.
Judge PanelParraguirre, Stiglich, Silver, Judges Hon. Kerry Louise Earley, District Judge William C. Turner, Settlement Judge
Case DateJanuary 15, 2021
CourtSupreme Court of Nevada

SATICOY BAY, LLC, SERIES 3984 MEADOW FOXTAIL DRIVE, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

SUNRISE RIDGE MASTER HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A NEVADA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION; AND NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Respondents.

No. 80204

Supreme Court of Nevada

January 15, 2021

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kerry Louise Earley, Judge.[1]

Having considered the parties' arguments and the record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint. See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (reviewing de novo a district court's NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissal and recognizing that dismissal is appropriate when "it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief). In particular, appellant's claims for misrepresentation and breach of NRS 116.1113 fail because respondents had no duty to proactively disclose whether a superpriority tender had been made.2 Compare NRS 116.31162(1)(b)(3)(II) (2017) (requiring an HOA to disclose if tender of the superpriority portion of the lien has been made), with NRS 116.31162 (2005)[3] (not requiring any such disclosure); see Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 394, 400, 302 P.3d 1148, 1153 (2013) (providing the elements for a negligent misrepresentation claim, one of which is "supply[ing] false information" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nelson v. Heer, 123 Nev. 217, 225, 163 P.3d 420, 426 (2007) (providing the elements for an intentional misrepresentation claim, one of which is making "a false representation").

Finally, because respondents did not do anything unlawful, appellant's civil conspiracy claim necessarily fails. See Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1311, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (providing that a civil conspiracy requires, among other things, a "concerted action, intend[ed] to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another"). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre, Stiglich, Silver, Judges

Hon. Kerry Louise Earley, District Judge

William C. Turner, Settlement Judge


Notes:

[1] Pursuant to NRAP...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP