2 

' 

Commission declined to take action against the judge, appellants filed the 

underlying lawsuit alleging various tort causes of action. All respondents 

moved to dismiss appellants' complaint, and the district court granted the 

motions to dismiss and awarded costs and attorney fees to the 

Commission. Appellants appeal. 

"A district court order granting an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to 

dismiss is subject to rigorous appellate review." Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 823, 221 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2009). 

When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this court accepts the factual 

allegations in the complaint as true and draws reasonable inferences in 

favor of the plaintiffs, "but the allegations must be legally sufficient to 

constitute the elements of the claim asserted." Id. 

Parties cannot collaterally attack the conduct of judges in one 

action by filing a separate action; the judge is immune from suit. Bradley 

v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 346-47 (1871); Duff v. Lewis, 114 Nev. 

564, 568-69, 958 P.2d 82, 85 (1998). Judicial immunity also applies to the 

Commission when it acts in furtherance of its official functions. NRS 

1.465; Whitehead v. Nev. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, 110 Nev. 128, 

159-60, 906 P.2d 230, 249-50 (1994); see also Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 

478, 511-12 (1978); Salman v. Nev. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, 104 F. 

Supp. 2d 1262, 1267 (2000). Thus, we conclude that Judges Huff and 

Aberasturi and the Commission are immune from suit and were properly 

dismissed from this case. 

As to the respondent attorneys and law firms, appellants 

failed to state a claim against them. The Nevada Rules of Professional 

Conduct (NRPC) do not provide a duty of disclosure of campaign 

contributions to opposing parties or a private right of action against 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

I 
3 

attorneys for alleged violations of the professional conduct rules. NRPC 

1.0A(d); NRPC 3.3-3.4; Mainor v. Nault, 120 Nev. 750, 768-69, 101 P.3d 

308, 320-21 (2004). Moreover, appellants' tort and fraud claims are based 

solely on unspecified campaign contributions and do not adequately state 

a claim for the relief sought by appellants.' See NRCP 9(b) (requiring 

allegations of fraud be pleaded with specificity); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil 

Co., 457 U.S. 922, 928 (1982) (requiring state action for claims asserting 

violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Hilton Hotels Corp. V. Butch Lewis Prods., 

Inc., 109 Nev. 1043, 1048, 862 P.2d 1207, 1210 (1993) (setting forth the 

elements of intentional interference with contract claims); Barmettler v. 

Reno Air, Inc., 114 Nev. 441, 447, 956 P.2d 1382, 1386 (1998) (requiring 

extreme and outrageous conduct for intentional infliction of emotional 

distress and a false misrepresentation for fraudulent misrepresentation); 

Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 114 Nev. 1468, 1486, 970 P.2d 98, 110 (1998) 

(requiring a duty to disclose for fraudulent concealment); Jordan v. State 

ex rel. Dep't of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 75, 110 P.3d 30, 

51 (2005) (requiring an underlying fraud as a predicate to conspiracy to 

commit fraud), abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. 

'According to the respondent attorneys and law firms, they made 

campaign contributions of approximately $250 to the respondent judges. 

Such contributions are not excessive and did not require disqualification. 

Ivey v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. , 299 P.3d 354 (2013) 

(addressing Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)); see 

also City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 640, 644- 

45, 5 P.3d 1059, 1062 (2000) (holding that campaign contributions in a 

state that elects its judges are a necessary blight and may not be allowed 

to unduly inhibit the function of the judiciary, and "a contribution to a 

presiding judge by a party or an attorney does not ordinarily constitute 

grounds for disqualification"). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

EiMMIMERVAAAAVE rigk MESS 121111E M 
Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

UNE 

Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008). Thus, appellants have 

failed to demonstrate that the attorneys' failure to disclose campaign 

contributions to Judges Huff or Aberasturi may form the basis of a 

collateral tort action and, therefore, the district court properly dismissed 

the causes of action against the attorneys and law firms. 

With regard to appellant's motion to amend the complaint, 

such a motion is addressed to the district court's discretion and, in light of 

the above discussion, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district 

court's denial of appellants' motion to amend their complaint. State, Univ. 

& Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Sutton, 120 Nev. 972, 988, 103 P.3d 8, 19 (2004). 

With regard to the attorney fees and costs award to the Commission, NRS 

18.010(2)(b) permits an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party to 

punish and deter frivolous or vexatious claims, and NRS 18.020 permits 

an award of costs to the prevailing party. Having reviewed appellants' 

arguments and the record, we conclude that the district court acted within 

its discretion when awarding attorney fees and costs. Thomas v. City of N. 

Las Vegas, 122 Nev. 82, 95, 127 P.3d 1057, 1066 (2006); Schwartz v. Estate 

of Greenspun, 110 Nev. 1042, 1050, 881 P.2d 638, 643 (1994). Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

, J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 
cc: Chief Judge, the Tenth Judicial District 

Hon. Robert E. Rose, Senior Justice 

Rebecca Lynn Fasano 

Timothy Fasano 

Kravitz, Schnitzer, Sloane & Johnson, Chtd. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

James F. Sloan 

Woodburn & Wedge 

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg 

Churchill County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

5 

ERVW.tiNKEN