No. 66196 

FILED 

APR 1 5 2016 

eLETRRACFIELpLiRtN.C1EMAN, 

. \ 

EIWE COURT 

DEPUTY CLERK 

No. 66732 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MITCHELL PLETCHER, AN 

INDIVIDUAL, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

BOULEVARD THEATER, LLC, A 

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; FX LUXURY LAS VEGAS I, 

LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; URBAN RETAIL 

PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 

RICHARD WEISIVIAN, AN 

INDIVIDUAL; SHIRIN WEISMAN, AN 

INDIVIDUAL; PAUL M. SULLIVAN, AN 

INDIVIDUAL; AND TOMMY 

RICCARDO, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Respondents. 

MITCHELL PLETCHER, AN 

INDIVIDUAL. 

Appellant, 

vs. 

BOULEVARD THEATER, LLC, A 

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; FX LUXURY LAS VEGAS I, 

LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; URBAN RETAIL 

PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 

RICHARD WEISMAN, AN 

INDIVIDUAL; SHIRIN WEISMAN, AN 

INDIVIDUAL; AND PAUL M. 

SULLIVAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Respondents. 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

These are pro se consolidated appeals from an order granting 

motions to dismiss that was certified as final under NRCP 54(b) and an 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I917A 1, 6 -1081 
order awarding attorney fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, 

Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge. 

The district court dismissed appellant's first breach of contract 

complaint as to respondents FX Luxury Las Vegas I, LLC, Urban Retail 

Properties, LLC, Richard Weisman, Shirin Weisman, and Paul Sullivan, 

and also denied appellant's request for leave to amend the complaint. 

Thereafter, appellant filed a second complaint in a separate action, which 

the district court then consolidated with the first action and dismissed the 

second complaint as to those respondents. The district court also awarded 

FX and Urban $15,000 each in attorney fees based on their offer of 

judgment. These appeals followed. 

Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's 

first complaint because he failed to state a claim upon which relief could 

be granted as to FX, Urban, the Weismans, and Sullivan. Buzz Stew, LLC 

v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) 

(explaining that this court rigorously reviews a decision to dismiss a 

complaint under NRCP 12(b)(5) de novo with all alleged facts in the 

complaint presumed true and all inferences drawn in favor of the 

complaint). Specifically, FX, Urban, the Weismans, and Sullivan had not 

entered into a contract with appellant since the letter of intent, by its own 

terms, was not a contract, and they were not parties to any other contract 

with appellant. See Albert H. Wohlers & Co. v. Bartgis, 114 Nev. 1249, 

1262, 969 P.2d 949, 959 (1998) ("no one is liable upon a contract except 

those who are parties to it" (internal quotation omitted)); Hilton Hotels 

Corp. v. Butch Lewis Prods., Inc., 107 Nev. 226, 232-33, 808 P.2d 919, 922- 

23 (1991) (describing the covenant of good faith and fair dealing). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1907A (e 
Further, Urban was acting as FX's agent and appellant failed 

to plead facts alleging that the Weismans or Sullivan were the alter egos 

of Boulevard Theater, LLC, and thus, these respondents could not be held 

liable. See Swartout v. Grover Collins Drilling Mud Eng'rs and Materials, 

75 Nev. 297, 300, 339 P.2d 768,789 (1959) ("An agent who, acting within 

the scope of his authority, enters into contractual relations for a disclosed 

principal, does not bind himself, in the absence of an express agreement to 

do so . ." (internal quotation omitted)); Polaris Indus. Corp. v. Kaplan, 

103 Nev. 598, 601, 747 P.2d 884, 886 (1987) (describing the requirements 

to establish an alter ego claim). Additionally, appellant failed to plead the 

fraud-based claims with particularity, NRCP 9(b), and because appellant 

provided his $20,000 deposit to Boulevard Theater, LLC, that money could 

not have been converted by FX, Urban, the Weismans, and Sullivan. See 

Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 116 Nev. 598, 606, 5 P.3d 1043, 1048 

(2000) (explaining conversion). 

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying 

appellant's motion for leave to amend the first complaint because he never 

provided the court with a proposed amended complaint as an attachment 

to his request. See EDCR 2.30 (requiring a motion for leave to amend the 

complaint to be accompanied by a proposed amended complaint); Allam v. 

Valley Bank of Nev., 109 Nev. 280, 287, 849 P.2d 297, 302 (1993) 

(explaining that this court reviews the denial of a motion for leave to 

amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion); see also Gardner v. 

Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that where a local 

rule requires the attachment of a proposed amended complaint to a 

request for leave to amend, it is within the district court's discretion to 

deny the request based on the party's failure to attach the proposed 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

10) 1047A ea 
pleading). While appellant argues that he did not have to provide the 

court with a proposed amended complaint because he made his motion 

orally, the record demonstrates that appellant made the request in writing 

and failed to include the requisite attachment with either his written 

request or subsequent motions for reconsideration. 

Additionally, the district court properly dismissed appellant's 

second complaint because it was barred by claim preclusion. Five Star 

Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1054, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008); see 

G.C. Wallace, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 701, 705, 262 

P.3d 1135, 1137 (2011) (explaining that this court reviews the application 

of claim preclusion de novo). And, because the district court properly 

considered the Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 588-89, 668 P.2d 268, 274 

(1983), and Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 

P.2d 31, 33 (1969), factors in awarding attorney fees to FX and Urban and 

also decreased the awards based on the questionable reasonableness of the 

amount of their offer of judgment, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in awarding FX and Urban $15,000 each in attorney fees. 

Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 319 P.3d 606, 615 

(2014) (explaining that this court reviews an award of attorney fees for an 

abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cao i

/A-2 , J. 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

4 

(0) 1947A en 
cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge 

Mitchell Pletcher 

The Williamson Law Office, PLLC 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno 

Dickinson Wright PLLC 

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Las Vegas 

Caruso Law Offices 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

5