Case Title: Choy v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc.

Citation: 128 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 29

Docket Number: 

State: nevada

Court: Nevada Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
428New, Advance Opinion 27
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.

 
   
 

PAUL CHOY, No. 56281
Appellant, FILED
vs. E
AMERISTAR CASINOS, INC., A

NEVADA CORPORATION, Jun 28 207

 
     
 
 
  
  
 
   
   
 
    
  
 
 
   

Respondent.

  

Petition for en bane reconsideration of panel opinion affirming
district court summary judgment in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District,
Court, Clark County; Elissa F, Cadish, Judge.

Petition for en bane reconsideration denied.

Nersesian & Sankiewicz and Robert A. Nersesian and Thea Marie

Sankiewicz, Las Vegas,
for Appellant.

Pisanelli Bice, PLLC, and Todd L, Bice and Jarrod L., Rickard, Las Vegas,
for Respondent.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION
By the Court, DOUGLAS, J.:
Appellant Paul Choy filed a complaint in district court

alleging various tort claims against respondent Ameristar Casinos, Inc.,

 

arising out of Choy’s alleged detention by security guards at the Ameristar
Casino Hotel Kansas City in Missouri. After Ameristar Casinos, Inc,, filed
a motion for summary judgment, Choy filed an opposition that included a
paragraph arguing that under NRCP 56(f) the summary judgment motion

 

12- 20285 |

 
should be continued to allow for discovery. The district court denied
Choy's request to continue the motion to allow for discovery and granted
summary judgment,

On appeal, Choy argued that the district court erred in
denying his request under NRCP 56(f) and granting summary judgment.
This court issued an opinion affirming the district court's order granting
summary judgment and denying Choy’s NRCP 56(f) request, holding that
Choy failed to substantially comply with NRCP 56(f)'s requirement that
the party opposing a motion for summary judgment and seeking a denial
or continuance of the motion in order to conduct further discovery must
provide an affidavit giving the reasons why the party cannot present “facts
essential to justify the party's opposition.” Choy v. Ameristar Casinos, 127
Nev. _, __, 265 P.3d 698, 700 (2011). Choy thereafter filed a timely
petition for rehearing, which was denied. Choy then filed this timely
petition for en bane reconsideration.

En bane reconsideration is appropriate when needed to
preserve precedential uniformity or the matter presents issues involving
substantial precedential, constitutional, or public policy value. NRAP
40A(@). Choy contends this court’s precedent did not require parties to
comply with NRCP 56(f)'s affidavit requirement, citing to Halimi_v.
Blacketor, 105 Nev. 105, 106, 770 P.2d 531, 531 (1989), in support of his
argument, To the extent that Halimi is inconsistent with the text of
NRCP 56( and this court’s holding in Choy, that parties must
substantially comply with NRCP 56(f's affidavit requirement, we
disapprove of the holding in Halimi.

es 2

 

er Be

 
  

Choy has failed to demonstrate that en bane reconsideration is,
warranted in this appeal, and the petition is therefore denied.

 

"The remaining arguments made by Choy in his petition also fail to
demonstrate that en bane reconsideration is warranted.