Title: Elyousef v. O'Reilly & Ferrario, LLC

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

on =e

 

126 Nev, Advance Opinion +43,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BASHAR AHMAD ELYOUSEF, AN | No. 51925
INDIVIDUAL,

Appellant,

O'REILLY & FERRARIO, LLC, A

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY FILED
COMPANY; AND O'REILLY LAW Nov 18 200
GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED |

LIABILITY COMPANY,
Respondents

teu

 

Appeal from a district court summary judgment in a legal
malpractice action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph
‘T. Bonaventure, Judge.

Affirmed,

Steve T. Skivington, Las Vegas,
for Appellant.

‘Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush & Kisinger and Brian K. Terry
and Kenneth R. Lund, Las Vegas,

for Respondents,

BEFORE HARDESTY, DOUGLAS and PICKERING, JJ.

OPINION
PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, we consider whether the doctrines of double
recovery and issue preclusion bar appellant Bashar Ahmad Elyousef from
recovery against respondents O'Reilly & Ferrario, LLC, and O'Reilly Law

1o-soul

 

 
Group, LLC (collectively, O'Reilly). In doing so, we expressly adopt the
double recovery doctrine. We conclude that because both doctrines bar
Elyousef’s ability to recover, the district court appropriately granted
summary judgment in O'Reilly's favor.

L
Elyousef, a client of the O'Reilly firm, entered into a busines:
transaction with his attorney, C. Dean Homayouni, who was employed by

tion. The transaction

 

O'Reilly during the early stages of the trani
resulted in Homayouni obtaining Elyousef's interest in Nevada Oil and

Land Development, LLC (NOLD), which in turn owns a gas station in Las

 

Vegas. Homayouni left O'Reilly because the law firm opposed the
transaction due to a conflict of interest between Homayouni and the firm's
client, Elyousef.

When the business relationship soured, Homayouni sued
Elyousef. Elyousef filed a counterclaim against Homayouni, alleging that
Homayouni negligently caused him to lose his interest in NOLD. The
district court awarded Elyousef $150,000 in damages plus $225,631.22 in
jcosts and fees. Homayouni subsequently settled with Elyousef for $50,000
plus the return of his interest in NOLD. Elyousef then sued O'Reilly for
breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and legal malpractice, negligent
‘supervision, respondeat superior, breach of contract, and breach of implied
jcovenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted
jsummary judgment in O'Reilly's favor, concluding that the doctrines of

Jdouble recovery and issue preclusion barred Elyousef’s ability to recover
{from O'Reilly. On appeal, Elyousef maintains that neither doctrine bars
/him from further recovery.

 

 
 

=

o
“We review an appeal from an order granting a motion for
summary judgment de novo.” Sustainable Growth v, Jumpers, LLC, 122
Nev. 63, 61, 128 P.3d 452, 458 (2006). Summary judgment is appropriate
when the pleadings and other evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party, demonstrate that no genuine issue as to any
material fact remains and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Wood v, Safeway, Inc, 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026,
1029 (2005). Additionally, whether the double recovery doctrine precludes
a claim is a question of law we review de novo. See, e.¢., Morley-Murphy
Co. v, Zenith Electronics Corp., 142 F.3d 373, 878 (7th Cir, 1998); Nevada
Classified Sch. Emp. Ass'n v, Quaglia, 124 Nev. 60, 63, 177 P.3d 609, 511
(2008). Summary judgment is appropriate where issue preclusion bars a
claim, Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray, 121 Nev. 464, 474, 117 P.3d 227, 234
(2005).

UL

Under the double recovery doctrine, “there can be only one
recovery of damages for one wrong or injury.” 25 CS. Damages § 5
(2002) (citing Brightheart v, McKay, 420 F.2d 242 (D.C. Cir. 1969)). Thu
“la] plaintiff may not recover damages twice for the same injury simply
because he or she has two legal theories.” Id, (citing Greenwood Ranches,
Inc.v, Skie Const, Co,, 629 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1980)); see also 47 Am. Jur.
2d Judgments § 808 (2006) (noting the principle that an injured party
should not be able to recover more than once for the same wrong);
Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 25 (2000)

 

(setting forth that payment of full amount of damages satisfies plaintiff's
rights against all tortfeasors for an indivisible injury).

 
We have previously applied the double recovery doctrine to
prohibit a plaintiff's further recovery for the same injury. See Phelps v.
‘State Farm Mut, Auto, Ins., 112 Nev. 675, 680, 917 P.2d 944, 948 (1996)
(requiring insurance carrier to pay for insured’s already compensated
Jdamages would violate policy against double recovery); see also Grosjean
jv. Imperial Palace, 125 Nev. _, __, 212 P.8d 1068, 1084 (2009). In
|Grosjean, we recently held that the double recovery doctrine barred a
plaintiff's state law tort claim when the plaintiff had already recovered for

ithe same injuries on a federal § 1983 claim, We noted that when a

 

plaintiff asserts claims under different legal theories, “he or she is not
lentitled to a separate compensatory damage award under each legal
theory.” Id, at __, 212 P.3d at 1084, Rather, “the plaintiff is entitled to
lonly one compensatory damage award on one or both theories of liability.”
Id, at __, 212 P.3d at 1084.

Although we have applied the double recovery doctrine in
prior cases, we have not expressly adopted it. We now take this
lopportunity to do so. Accordingly, we hold that a plaintiff can recover only

Jonce for a single injury even if the plaintiff asserts multiple legal theori

 

|Thus, satisfaction of the plaintiffs damages for an injury bars further
jrecovery for that injury.

Applying the doctrine to this case, Elyousef cannot recover
irom O'Reilly because he has already fully recovered through his
jsettlement with Homayouni. Elyousef, however, argues that his judgment
has not been fully satisfied because he only received $50,000 in the
jscttlement. He therefore claims that he should be able to recover the

mainder of his judgment and attorney fees from O'Reilly. Elyousef's

gument fails to acknowledge that the settlement also restored his

 

 
controlling interest in NOLD. In the record on appeal, he concedes that
ithe NOLD property is valued at over $2 million.! Accordingly, the
settlement with Homayouni fully satisfied the judgment, and Elyousef's
further recovery would violate the double recovery doctrine.

‘Thus, the double recovery doctrine applies here because the
judgment established total recoverable damages before settlement, and
the settlement completely satisfied the judgment. Elyousef’s suit against
|O'Reilly did not allege any different damages that would have allowed for
further recovery. ‘Thus, settlement prevents further recovery from
Janother party for the same injury when the total amount of damages is
jestablished before settlement and the settlement fully satisfies those

damages,

Ww.

Issue preclusion bars relitigation of an issue when all four of
ithe following factors are satisfied: “(1) the issue decided in the prior
litigation must be identical to the issue presented in the current action; (2)
ithe initial ruling must have been on the merits and have become
final; ... (3) the party against whom the judgment is asserted must have
jbeen a party or in privity with a party to the prior litigation’; and (4) the

'Elyousef wrote a complaint letter against Homayouni to the
/Nevada State Bar. In this letter, Elyousef maintained that the NOLD
property is worth between $2.3 and $2.4 million. ‘The record on appeal
fincludes multiple offers to purchase the NOLD property that support
{Elyousef's assertion. Neither in his opposition to O'Reilly's motion for
jsummary judgment nor in his answering brief on appeal does he raise any
Jargument suggesting a different calculation method or lower value.

 

 
sn

 

issue was actually and necessarily litigated,” Five Star Capital Corp. v.
Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.8d 709, 713 (2008) (alteration in
loriginal) (quoting University of Nevada v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 598,
879 P.2d 1180, 1191 (1994).

Here Elyousef seeks to relitigate the amount of damages he
jsustained when Homayouni obtained Elyousef's controlling interest in
INOLD. All four of the issue preclusion factors are met in this case. First,

the damages issue is identical to the damage issue in the initial litigation

 

jbetwoen Elyousef and Homayouni because both cases involve the same
injury. Elyousef also does not argue that he suffered any injury other
than damages from loss of his interest in NOLD. Second, the district court
issued a final ruling on the merits in the first case and awarded Elyousef:
{$150,000 plus attorney fees and costs. Third, the party against whom the
judgment is asserted, Elyousef, was a party to the initial litigation.
Finally, the damages issue was actually and necessarily litigated because
ithe case proceeded to trial and the district court judge determined the
jamount of damages. Therefore, issue preclusion bars Elyousef from
relitigating the amount of his damages for loss of his interest in NOLD.
Because Elyousef cannot recovery from O'Reilly as a matter of

law, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment.

te \us

Hardesty

 

Douglas