for fraud, and $250,000 for civil conspiracy. The district court entered its 

judgment on the jury's verdict. Findlay appealed the district court's order, 

alleging that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict 

on the issues of civil conspiracy and fraud. Jenkins cross-appealed, 

alleging that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award 

attorney fees and special damages. 

There was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the civil 

conspiracy claim 

"When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged on appeal, this 

court determines whether, after viewing all inferences in favor of the 

prevailing party, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict." J.J. 

Indus., LLC v. Bennett, 119 Nev. 269, 273, 71 P.3d 1264, 1267 (2003). A 

cause of action for "civil conspiracy arises where two or more persons 

undertake some concerted action with the intent to accomplish an 

unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another, and damage 

results." Guilfoyle v. Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., 130 Nev., Adv. 

Op. 78, 335 P.3d 190, 198 (2014) (internal quotations omitted). "Thus, a 

plaintiff must provide evidence of an explicit or tacit agreement between 

the alleged conspirators" for the purpose of harming the plaintiff. Id. 

The evidence submitted in this case, when viewed with all 

inferences in favor of Jenkins, does not support a finding that LVAL had 

intent to harm Jenkins. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to 

support the jury's verdict of civil conspiracy.' 

'Because there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict 

on the civil conspiracy claim, we do not reach the issue of whether the 

jury's award of damages for that claim was duplicative or excessive as a 

matter of law. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ero 
There was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the fraud 

claim 

To prove fraud by inducement, a plaintiff "must prove by clear 

and convincing evidence each of the following elements": (1) a false 

representation made by a party, (2) knowledge or belief by the party that 

the representation was false, or knowledge that it had an insufficient basis 

for making the representation, (3) intent to induce another party to 

consent to the contract's formation, (4) the other party justifiably relied 

upon the misrepresentation, and (5) damage to the other party resulted. 

J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 120 Nev. 277, 290, 

89 P.3d 1009, 1018 (2004). 

The evidence submitted in this case, when viewed with all 

inferences in favor of Jenkins, supports a finding that the elements of 

fraud were met. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the 

jury's verdict of fraud. 

The district court abused its discretion by refusing to award attorney fees 

without stating a basis for its denial 

"The decision to award attorney fees is within the sound 

discretion of the district court and will not be overturned absent a 

manifest abuse of discretion." Kahn v. Morse & Mowbray, 121 Nev. 464, 

479, 117 P.3d 227, 238 (2005) (internal quotations omitted). However, it 

‘`constitutes an abuse of discretion for a court to give no reason for its 

refusal to award fees." Pandelis Constr. Co. v. Jones-Viking Assocs., 103 

Nev. 129, 132, 734 P.2d 1236, 1238 (1987). 

Here, the district court abused •its discretion by denying 

Findlay's motion for attorney fees without stating a basis for its denial. 

Therefore, we remand this case to the district court with directions to 

either award attorney fees or state its reasons for refusing to do so. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to award special 

damages under NRS 41.1395 

NRS 41.1395 authorizes a vulnerable person who suffers a 

personal injury or a loss of money or property caused by exploitation to 

recover double damages and, under certain circumstances, attorney fees 

and costs. NRS 41.1395(1), (2). Special damages must be specifically 

pleaded. NRCP 9(g); Horgan v. Felton, 123 Nev. 577, 586 n.26, 170 P.3d 

982, 988 n.26 (2007). 

Here, Jenkins did not specifically plead double damages and 

attorney fees under NRS 41.1395 in his complaint. Therefore, the district 

court properly refused to award them. 

Conclusion 

There was insufficient evidence submitted in this case to 

support the jury's verdict of civil conspiracy. Furthermore, the district 

court abused its discretion by refusing to award attorney fees without 

stating a basis for its denial. We therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN 

PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the 

district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Saitta 

4 

(0) 1947A COW 
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge 

Pico Rosenberger 

The Wasielewski Law Firm, Ltd. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A 404