Case Title: Otak Nevada, L.L.C. v. Dist. Court

Citation: 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 53

Docket Number: 56065

State: nevada

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
427 Nev, Advance Opinion 53
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

OTAK NEVADA, LLC,
Petitioner,

vs.
‘THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK, AND THE HONORABLE,
DOUGLAS SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,

and
PACIFICAP CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES, LLC; PACIFICAP
PROPERTIES GROUP, LLC;
PACIFICAP HOLDINGS XXIX, LLC;
CHAD I. RENNAKER; JASON Q.
RENNAKER; CHEYENNE
APARTMENTS PPG, LP; AND.
CHRISTOPHER WATKINS,
Real Parties in Interest.

No. 56065

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

FILED

‘SEP 08 2011

Original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging district
court orders entered in a tort action.
Petition granted,

Weil & Drage, APC, and Jean A. Weil and Thomas A. Larmore, Las Vegas,
for Petitioner.

‘Thagard, Reiss & Brown, LLP, and Thomas Friedman, Las Vegas,
for Real Party in Interest Pacificap Construction Services, LLC.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP and Mark J. Brown and Josh C.
Aicklen, Las Vegas,

for Real Parties in Interest Pacificap Properties Group, LLC; Pacificap
Holdings XXIX, LLC; Chad I. Rennaker; Jason Q. Rennaker; and
Cheyenne Apartments PPG, LP.

 

WaTaal

 

 
Lewis & Roca LLP and Daniel F. Polsenberg and Joel D. Henriod, Las
Vegas; Simon Law Office and Daniel S. Simon, Las Vegas,
for Real Party in Interest Christopher Watkins.

 

BEFORE SAITTA, C.J., HARDESTY and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.
OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this extraordinary writ proceeding, we must determine
whether NRS 11.259(1) compels dismissal where the initial pleading in an
action alleging nonresidential construction malpractice was served
without filing the attorney affidavit and expert report required by NRS
11.258(1) and (3). We take this opportunity to extend our analysis and
holding in Fierle v, Perez, 125 Nev. __, __, 219 P.3d 906, 914 (2009)
(interpreting NRS 41A.07I's expert affidavit requirement in medical
malpractice actions) to apply to a defective pleading served in violation of
NRS 11.258. Such a pleading is void ab initio and of no legal effect and,
thus, cannot be cured by amendment. Therefore, because the initial
pleadings! served by certain real parties in interest in this case did not
include the attorney affidavit and expert report as required by NRS
11.258, those pleadings were void ab initio, and the district court did not

"The pleadings at issue in this case are a third-party complaint and
laim. For simplicity, we will refer to these as “pleadings” unless
otherwise necessary.

 

 

 
 

have discretionary authority to allow the parties to amend their pleadings
to cure their failure to comply with NRS 11.258, Accordingly, we conclude
that writ relief is warranted.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY.

‘This wrongful death and personal injury matter arose out of
claims for damages allegedly caused by a defect in street improvements to
Cheyenne Avenue in Las Vegas. A vehicle operated by someone who is not
a party to this writ proceeding was driving on Cheyenne when it ran into a
median and collided with oncoming traffic, killing the driver of the other
car and injuring the passenger, real party in interest Christopher
Watkins. The decedent's family and Watkins filed suit against the parties
involved in the construction project, including the other real parties in
interest.

In September 2009, real party in interest Pacificap
Construction Services, LLC (PCS), the general contractor, filed a third-
party complaint against petitioner Otak Nevada, LLC, the design
architect, alleging claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of
express and implied warranties, implied indemnity, express indemnity,
equitable indemnity, contribution, and apportionment, and seeking
declaratory relief, related to Otak’s work on the Cheyenne Avenue
construction project that led to the fatal automobile collision. ‘The third-
party complaint was served on Otak on September 21, 2009. However, no
attorney affidavit or expert report was included with the third-party
complaint or filed with the district court before the complaints service on
Otak as required by NRS 11.258. Before Otak filed a responsive pleading,
in January 2010, PCS filed an amended third-party complaint that did not
include allegations of breach of express or implied warranties, or claims

3

 

 
for implied or express indemnity. ‘The amended third-party complaint
included for the first time an affidavit from PCS's attorney in which he

stated that the claim had a reasonable basis in fact and law, and it also

 

included an expert report opining that Otak’s engineering services fell
below the standard of care.

Otak filed a motion to dismiss PCS's amended third-party
complaint on the grounds that the affidavit and report were not filed
concurrently with or before the original third-party complaint,
by NRS 11,258, Citing this court's holding in Fierle, 125 Nev. at __,
P.3d at 914 (holding that a medical malpractice complaint filed without

 

required

219

 

the statutorily required expert report is void and cannot be amended),
Otak argued that the third-party complaint was void ab initio, The
district court conducted a hearing and denied Otak’s motion, stating that
the holding in Fierle applied only to medical malpractice c:

After the district court denied Otak’s motion to dismiss, real

 

08.

parties in interest Pacificap Properties Group, LLC; Pacificap Holdings
XXIX, LLC; Chad I, Rennaker; and Jason Q. Rennaker (collectively, P&R)
filed a motion for leave to amend their answer and assert cross-claims
against Otak. Similar to its motion to dismiss PCS's amended third-party
complaint, Otak opposed P&R’s motion to amend for failure to file the
required attorney affidavit and expert report and argued that the cross-
claim was void ab initio under Fierle. The district court conducted a

hearing on this motion as well and granted P&R's motion to amend, and
the court further found that P&R could rely on PCS's expert report instead
of filing its own expert report. The district court also orally concluded
that, based on its ruling that P&R could rely on PCS's expert report,

 

 
Watkins? could also rely on PCS's expert report in amending his complaint
against Otak. Otak now petitions this court for writ relief?
DISCUSSION
In its petition, Otak maintains that the district court erred by
ruling that PCS’
failed to file an affidavit and expert report, as required by NRS 11.258(1)

 

and P&R’s pleadings were not void when those parties

and (3). This argument raises an issue of first impression in Nevada: Is a

 

construction design malpractice pleading void ab initio if the statutori

 

required attorney affidavit and expert report are not filed with the court
before the initial pleading is served? Because the determination of this
issue is not fact-bound and it involves an unsettled question of law that is
likely to recur, and because this case is in the early stages of litigation and
resolving this question now promotes judicial economy, we conclude that
our consideration of this writ petition is warranted. See County of Clark
Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 753, 961 P.2d 754, 757 (1998) (concluding that
addressing an issue was appropriate because it would “likely rise again
and its resolution might forestall future litigation”); NRS 34.330
(recognizing that writ of mandamus is available only when no adequate
legal remedy exists); International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193,
197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 559 (2008) (noting that the right to appeal from a

2Watkins did not file any response to Otak’s writ petition.

°On August 6, 2010, we entered an order partially staying the
proceedings below. On August 17, 2011, Otak filed a motion to lift this
stay. In light of our decision today, we vacate the stay in its entirety and
deny the motion as moot.

 
future final judgment is not always an adequate legal remedy precluding
writ relief, such as when the case is at early stages of litigation and writ
relief would promote policies of sounds judicial administration);
Buckwalter v, Dist. Ct., 126 Nev. _, __, 284 P.3d 920, 921 (2010)
(recognizing that while “[nJormally, this court will not entertain a writ
petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss[, ] we may do so
where... the issue is not fact-bound and involves an unsettled and
potentially significant, recurring question of law”)

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of
Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4. “A writ of mandamus

mandamus available to

   

compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station, or to control a manifest abuse of
discretion.” We the People Nevada v, Secretary of State, 124 Nev. 874,
879, 192 P.3d 1166, 1170 (2008).

The district court based its orders denying Otak’s motion to
dismiss PCS's third-party complaint and granting P&R’s motion to file an
amended answer and cross-claim on its interpretation and application of
NRS 11.258. “This court reviews a district court's statutory construction
determinations de novo.” Fierle, 125 Nev. at __, 219 P.3d at 910.

An initi: jential constructi v
ifiit is served before an att expert report are filed
with the court

NRS 11.268(1) and (3) provide that

 

the attorney . .. shall file
[the affidavit and expert report] ... concurrently with the service of the

‘NRS 11.258(2) provides an exception to the affidavit filing
requirement under certain circumstances, but the facts of this case do not
fit that exception,

 

ane
ge REISE EE AN ERO AST PS
first pleading in the action.”* Additionally, NRS 11.259(2) provides that
the district court “shall dismiss” a party's initial pleading alleging
nonresidential construction malpractice if it is served without the party
filing the required attorney affidavit and expert report, Because the
phrase “shall dismiss” is clear and unambiguous, we must give “effect to

that meaning and will not consider outside sources beyond that statute.”

City of Reno v, Citizens for Cold Springs, 126 Nev. __, __, 236 P.3d 10,
16 (2010) (quoting NAIW v, Nevada Self-Insurers Association, 126 Nev.

+ 225 P.8d 1265, 1271 (2010).

‘The use of the word “[s}hall’ imposes a duty to act.” NRS
0.025(1)(4); see also $,N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev. 15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278
(1992) (“[S}hall’ is mandatory unless the statute demands
construction to carry out the clear intent of the logislature.”); Washoe
Med. Ctr, v, Dist, Ct,, 122 Nev. 1298, 1303, 148 P.3d 790, 793 (2006)

(“TS]hall’ is mandatory and does not denote judicial discretion."). ‘Thus,

 

different

 

 

the Legislature's use of “shall” in NRS 11.269 demonstrates its intent to
prohibit judicial discretion and, consequently, mandates automatic

dismissal if the pleading is served without the complaining party

The main difference between the medical malpractice statute and
the nonresidential construction design malpractice statute is that the
medical malpractice statute requires the supporting documents to be filed
concurrently with the filing of the pleading, NRS 41A.071, whereas the
construction statute requires the supporting documents to be filed
concurrently with service of the first pleading. NRS 11.258(1). This
difference, however, is of no consequence to our analysis here.

 
concurrently filing the required affidavit and report. See Washoe Med,
122 Nev. at 1803, 148 P.3d at 793-94,

In Washoe Medical Center v, District Court, 122 Nev. at 1303,
148 P.3d at 793-94, we addressed a statutory interpretation issue similar
to the one raised in this case, when we analyzed NRS 41A.071, That
statute provides, in pertinent part, as follow:

 

If an action for medical malpractice filed in
the district court, the district court shall dismiss
the action... if the action is filed without an
supporting the allegations contained in

 
 

 

We determined that NRS 414.071’s mandatory language did not give the
district court the discretion to allow a party to amend a complaint alleging
medical malpractice that was filed without the required affidavit. Washoe
‘Med., 122 Nev. at 1303, 148 P.3d at 793-94. Later, in Fierle, we reasoned
that because a complaint filed under NRS 414.071 without the required
affidavit was void ab initio, “such complaints may not be amended because
they are void and do not legally exist.” 125 Nev. at _, 219 P.8d at 914;
see also Washoe Med,, 122 Nev. at 1800, 148 P.3d at 792. Our decision
also comported “with the underlying purpose of ... [NRS 41A.071], which
is to ensure that such actions be brought in good faith based [on]
‘competent expert opinion.” Fierle, 125 Nev. at _, 219 P.Sd at 914 (first
and second alterations in original) (quoting Borger v. Dist, Ct., 120 Nev.
1021, 1029, 102 P.3d 600, 606 (2004)). Our analysis in Washoe Medica
and Fierle is equally applicable to the instant case, and thus we now
extend our analysis in those cases to cases that are governed by NRS
11.258. Therefore, we conclude that because a pleading filed under NRS

 
nn
nommnmamal

11,258 without the required affidavit and expert report is void ab initio
and of no legal effect, the party's failure to comply with NRS 11.258
cannot be cured by amendment, See Fierle, 125 Nev. at _, 219 P.3d at
914; Washoe Med,, 122 Nev. at 1304, 148 P.3d at 794.

In this case, PCS served its initial pleading asserting

 

nonresidential construction malpractice claims against Otak without

 

concurrently filing the required attorney affidavit and expert report in
direct violation of NRS 11.258, and, thus, we conclude that PCS's initial
pleading is void ab initio. The provision of NRCP 15(a) that allows “[a]
party to amend the party's pleading onc

 

a matter of course at any time
before a responsive pleading is served” is inapplicable when that pleading
is void for not complying with NRS 11.268, because a void pleading does
not legally exist and thus cannot be amended. See Washoe Med,, 122 Nev.
at 1304, 148 P.3d at 794. Because the initial pleading was void for
violating NRS 11.258, the district court had no discretionary authority to
allow PCS to amend its pleading. Therefore, we conclude that the district

 

court abused its discretion when it denied Otak’s motion to dismiss PCS’s
amended third-party complaint.

P&R, rather than simply filing an amended complaint like
PCS, moved for the district court for leave to amend their answer and to
assert cross-claims for equitable indemnity and contribution against Otak.
The district court not only granted P&R’s motion, but also allowed them
(and Watkins, who did not even move to amend his claims against Otak)
to rely on PCS's expert report, rather than requiring each party filing a
claim against Otak to file their own expert report. As stated above,

granting the motion to amend was reversible error because the pleading

 

 
0

 

was void ab initio for being served without filing the expert report and
attorney affidavit. Additionally, the district court erred by allowing P&R
(and Watkins) to rely on PCS's expert report because NRS 11.258(1)
provides that “the attorney for the complainant shall file” the expert
report and affidavit. Hach party that files a separate complaint for
nonresidential construction malpractice must file

 

8 own expert report
and attorney affidavit, See Washoe Med., 122 Nev. at 1303, 148 P.3d at
793. Requiring each party to file a separate expert report and attorney

8 is not an

 

affidavit that are particularized to that party's clai
unreasonable requirement, as each party must justify its claims of
nonresidential construction malpractice based on that party's relationship
with the defendant.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we grant Otak’s
petition for extraordinary relief as to the nonresidential construction
defect claims against Otak’ and direct the clerk of this court to issue a
writ of mandamus instructing the district court to set aside its earlier
orders, grant Otak’s motion to dismiss PCS's amended third-party

“The parties do not argue, and we do not address, whether claims of
indemnity and contribution fall outside the scope of NRS 11.258(1).

"The other claims asserted against Otak are not at issue in this

petition, but we do not foreclose the district court’s evaluation of the effect
of this opinion on those remaining claims.

10

 
complaint, and deny P&R’s motion to amend its answer and cross-claim
against Otak.§

Hardesty
We concur:
Cite ca
Saitia

>
Parraguirre

*Otak also argues that the expert report did not meet other
requirements outlined in NRS 11.258 and that if this court did not
construe NRS 11.258 similarly to NRS 41A.071, it would be a violation of
equal protection. Because we conclude that the initial pleadings against
Otak were void, we do not reach the merits of these claims.