IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

TRACE K LINDEMAN 

CLERF UPREME COURT 

BY 

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART, AND 

REMANDING 

This is an appeal from a district court judgment on a jury 

verdict in a breach of contract action and a district court order denying a 

motion for judgment as a matter of law or new trial. Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Clark County; Rob Bare, Judge. 

On March 11, 2016, this court issued an order affirming in 

part, reversing in part, and remanding the district court's judgment in 

favor of respondent Round Square Co., Ltd. (Round Square). See Las 

Vegas Sands Corp. v. Suen, Docket No. 64594 (Order Affirming in Part, 

Reversing in Part, and Remanding, Mar. 11, 2016). Because we granted 

rehearing in this matter on June 24, 2016, 1we withdraw the March 11, 

2016, order and issue this order in its place. 

This case arises out of business transactions between 

appellant Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (LVSI), and respondents Richard Suen 

1 See Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Suen, Docket No. 64594 (Order 

Granting Petition for Rehearing, June 24, 2016). In light of this order, 

respondents' motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition is 

denied as moot. 

LAS VEGAS SANDS CORP., 

Appellant, 

vs. 

RICHARD SUEN; AND ROUND 

SQUARE COMPANY LIMITED, 

Respondents. 

No. 64594 

FILED 

JUL 2 2 2016 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

Ro - 2-2nz (0) 1947A e 
and Round Square. LVSI owns and operates several casino and hotel 

operations. Suen conducts business in Hong Kong, Macau, and the 

People's Republic of China (PRC). Round Square is a company registered 

in Hong Kong and partially owned by Suen. 

Suen and Round Square engaged with LVSI to help LVSI 

obtain a gaming license in Macau. Suen also worked with, and 

coordinated the activities of, Zhu Zhensheng and Choi Yuen Yuen to assist 

LVSI. After the parties met, Suen and his associates set up meetings in 

Beijing between Sheldon Adelson, LVSI's Chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer; William Weidner, LVSI's former President; and high-ranking 

officials from the PRC. Eventually, Macau granted LVSI a subconcession 

that permitted it to build, finance, and operate casinos. 

After negotiations concerning payment for Suen's and Round 

Square's efforts fell through, Suen and Round Square filed a complaint 

against LVSI alleging claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit. 

Prior to the first trial, the district court granted summary judgment in 

favor of LVSI on the breach of contract claims but did not discuss Round 

Square's quantum meruit claim. The jury awarded Suen $43.8 million on 

his quantum meruit claim after a 29-day trial. LVSI appealed the 

judgment, and Suen and Round Square cross-appealed the district court's 

entry of summary judgment on their breach of contract claims. 

This court held, in Las Vegas Sands, Inc. v. Suen, Docket No. 

53163 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding, Nov. 

17, 2010) (hereinafter, Suen I), that Suen had standing to recover in 

quantum meruit on Choi's and Zhu's behalf. However, this court (1) 

reversed the judgment due to evidentiary and instructional errors, (2) 

reversed the grant of summary judgment in LVSI's favor on Suen and 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I94Th 

2 
Round Square's contract claims, and (3) remanded the matter for a new 

trial. Id. at *3. 

After the second trial (hereinafter, Suen II), the jury awarded 

Round Square $70 million on its quantum meruit claim and found in favor 

of LVSI on all other claims. LVSI filed post-trial motions for judgment as 

a matter of law and a new trial or remittitur. The district court denied 

LVSI's post-trial motions and entered judgment pursuant to the jury's 

verdict. 

LVSI now appeals, arguing that (1) the district court erred by 

submitting Round Square's quantum meruit claim to the jury; (2) Round 

Square lacked standing to pursue a quantum meruit claim; (3) the district 

court failed to properly instruct the jury on quantum meruit; (4) neither 

the jury's finding that Round Square conferred a benefit onto LVSI, nor 

the jury's award of damages are supported by substantial evidence; (5) the 

district court abused its discretion in several evidentiary rulings; and (6) 

other errors prejudiced LVSI's right to a fair trial. 

We hold that there was insufficient evidence to support the 

jury's award of damages, and thus, a new trial on the issue of damages is 

warranted. We further hold that LVSI's other claims are without merit. 

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history in 

this case, we do not recount them further except as necessary for our 

disposition. 

The district court properly submitted Round Square's quantum meruit 

claim to the jury 

LVSI contends Round Square could not bring its quantum 

meruit claim in Suen II because it waived this claim by failing to appeal 

the claim's dismissal in Suen L We disagree. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I 947A 
A district court's "oral pronouncement of judgment is not valid 

for any purpose; therefore, only a written judgment has any effect, and 

only a written judgment may be appealed." Div. of Child & Family Servs. 

v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev. 445, 452, 92 P.3d 1239, 1244 

(2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court's summary 

judgment order in Suen I only dismissed Round Square's contract claim; it 

did not mention, let alone dispose of, Round Square's quantum meruit 

claim. Because Round Square had no opportunity to appeal its quantum 

meruit claim, and because LVSI did not object to evidence regarding 

Round Square's quantum meruit claim, we hold that Round Square's 

quantum meruit claim was tried with the implied consent of the parties, 

and thus, the claim was properly before the jury. 2 See NRCP 15(b); 

Whiteman v. Brandis, 78 Nev. 320, 322, 372 P.2d 468, 469 (1962) (stating 

where evidence supporting a quantum meruit claim is received without 

objection, the claim is properly tried by the implied consent of the parties). 

Round Square has standing to recover in quantum meruit for the efforts of 

Suen, Zhu, and Choi 

2Because this court's previous order did not mention, let alone 

address, Round Square's quantum meruit claim, this court did not decide 

any rule of law concerning this claim. Therefore, we hold the law-of-thecase doctrine and mandate rule do not apply. See Wheeler Springs Plaza, 

LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, 266, 71 P.3d 1258, 1262 (2003) ("Under the 

law-of-the-case doctrine, when an appellate court decides a rule of law, 

that decision governs the same issues in subsequent proceedings. The 

doctrine only applies to issues previously determined, not to matters left 

open by the appellate court." (internal footnote omitted)). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A 74010 
LVSI argues that Round Square lacked standing to recover in 

quantum meruit for the services rendered by Suen and his associates. We 

disagree. "Standing is a question of law reviewed de novo." Arguello v. 

Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 368, 252 P.3d 206, 208 (2011). 

In Suen I, we concluded that (1) LVSI was aware Suen worked 

with Zhu and Choi in a joint effort to deliver LVSI a Macau gaming 

license, (2) LVSI directed the work performed by Suen's group, and (3) 

LVSI was aware Suen's group expected payment for their efforts. Las 

Vegas Sands, Docket No. 53163 at *6 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing 

in Part, and Remanding, Nov. 17, 2010). As a result, we held that Suen, 

"as the coordinator of [Zhu's and Choi's] efforts," could recover in quantum 

meruit for their services. Id. 

As Suen was entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the 

efforts of Zhu and Choi if he coordinated their efforts in an individual 

capacity, we see no reason why Round Square would not be able to recover 

for the efforts of Zhu and Choi if Suen coordinated their efforts in a 

representative capacity. In either case, (1) Zhu and Choi performed 

services to help secure LVSI a gaming license in Macau; (2) their services 

were coordinated by Suen, who received direction from LVSI; and (3) LVSI 

was aware the group expected to be paid for its efforts. See Horny 

Hammes, Inc. V. McNeil Constr. Co., 91 Nev. 130, 132, 532 P.2d 263, 264 

(1975) (holding the services of several subcontractors could be included as 

part of the contractor's quantum meruit recovery where testimony 

demonstrated such services were performed at the direction of the 

defendant); see also Certified Fire Prot., Inc. v. Precision Constr., Inc., 128 

Nev. 371, 381, 283 P.3d 250, 257 (2012) (stating a quantum meruit claim 

SUPREME COUFtT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) [947A 
may be brought where a benefit is conferred with a reasonable expectation 

of payment). 

Furthermore, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence 

to support a finding that Suen was Round Square's agent and acted on 

Round Square's behalf. Round Square presented evidence that (1) Suen 

was a director of Round Square, (2) Suen provided Adelson and Weidner 

with his Round Square business card, (3) Suen communicated with LVSI 

on Round Square letterhead, (4) Suen signed the purported acceptance of 

the success fee as Round Square's director, and (5) LVSI sent its 

procurement offer to "roundsqr@yahoo.com ." Therefore, we hold that 

Round Square was entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the efforts of 

Suen, Zhu, and Choi. 

The district court properly instructed the jury on quantum meruit 

LVSI contends the district court abused its discretion by 

failing to instruct the jury that (1) Round Square had to show its services 

conferred a benefit on LVSI, and (2) the jury needed to consider the 

market value of the services performed in awarding damages. We 

disagree. "A district court's decision to give or decline a proposed jury 

instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion or judicial error." 

Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 120 Nev. 639, 642, 98 P.3d 678, 680 

(2004). 

A plaintiff seeking to recover in quantum meruit must 

demonstrate, inter alia, that its services "confer[red] a benefit on the 

defendant." See Certified Fire, 128 Nev. at 381, 283 P.3d at 257. A benefit 

is "any form of advantage," not just the specific advantage the parties 

purportedly agreed upon. Id. at 382, 283 P.3d at 257 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Likewise, to have "value" means to be significant, 

desirable, or useful. Value, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). In the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 6 

(0) 1947A me 
context of quantum meruit, we conclude the terms "value" and "benefit" 

are interchangeable, as useful or desirable services are those that provide 

some form of advantage. Moreover, this is consistent with this court's 

precedent, wherein we have distinguished between services that provide 

value and those that either harm the recipient or leave him in the same 

position he would have been without the services. See Certified Fire, 128 

Nev. at 383, 283 P.3d at 258 (holding that the plaintiff could not recover in 

quantum meruit where the work performed "was incomplete, incorrect, 

and late," thereby providing no "ascertainable advantage" to the 

defendant); see also Thompson v. Herrmann, 91 Nev. 63, 68, 530 P.2d 

1183, 1186 (1975) (holding that the defendant could not recover in 

quantum meruit where the dam constructed had to be destroyed and 

rebuilt). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion when it accurately reasoned that its instruction requiring 

Round Square to show it "performed a service of value to" LVSI 

adequately incorporated the benefit requirement. 

Furthermore, we hold the district court did not abuse its 

discretion when it instructed the jury to "determine the reasonable value 

of [Round Square's] services," "consider[ing] the terms of any offers or 

proposals between the" parties "or any other evidence regarding the value 

of services." Although "[t]he actual value of recovery in [quantum meruit] 

cases is usually the lesser of (i) market value and (ii) a price the defendant 

has expressed a willingness to pay," Certified Fire, 128 Nev. at 381 n.3, 

283 P.3d at 257 n.3 (internal quotation marks omitted), a previous 

agreement between the parties may be a proper consideration in 

determining the reasonable value of services rendered, see Flamingo 

Realty, Inc. v. Midwest Dev., Inc., 110 Nev. 984, 988-89, 879 P.2d 69, 71-72 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 7 

(0) [947A affityin 
(1994). Additionally, the focus of the instruction was on determining the 

"reasonable value of the services," and the instruction stated the jury 

could consider "any other evidence" in making this determination, which 

necessarily includes evidence of the services' market value. 

Substantial evidence supports the finding that Round Square conferred a 

benefit on LVSI, but does not support the jury's award of damages 

LVSI contends Round Square failed to present sufficient 

evidence that it conferred a benefit on LVSI. We disagree. We will affirm 

a jury's findings "if they are based upon substantial evidence in the 

record." Prabhu v. Levine, 112 Nev. 1538, 1543, 930 P.2d 103, 107 (1996). 

Substantial evidence is "that which a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

There was substantial evidence in the record to support the 

finding that Round Square conferred a benefit onto LVSI, even if the 

benefit was not the exact one the parties agreed upon. Suen translated 

documents, prepared a report about LVSI, and had the report delivered to 

Qian Qichen, China's Vice Premier. Suen also used his connections with, 

and coordinated the efforts of, Choi and Zhu to reach out to important 

government contacts in Beijing to arrange the Beijing meetings. Further, 

Choi used his connections to quickly get permission for Adelson's plane to 

land in Beijing so Adelson and Weidner could attend the Beijing meetings. 

During the meeting with Qian, Suen also translated for Adelson. 

In addition, Weidner testified he wanted to meet Qian so he 

could capitalize on Suen's group's "guanxi" 3and obtain an advantage in 

'The social concept of "guanxi," although difficult to define, describes 

an aspect of Chinese culture wherein two parties may develop a 

relationship—perhaps "based on family ties" or "familiar connections"— 

and that relationship is maintained and fostered through various "social 

continued on next page... 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 8 

(0) 1947A e 
the bidding process, thus indicating he believed the Beijing meetings 

would be valuable to LVSI's efforts in Macau. Weidner further testified 

the Beijing meetings were valuable because they helped LVSI learn about 

the Chinese and Macanese governments and gave LVSI the opportunity to 

appear helpful with China's bid to host the 2008 Olympics. Moreover, 

LVSI continued to use photographs from the Beijing meetings in its 

publications years later, suggesting the fact Adelson met with Qian was 

valuable to LVSI's ongoing interests in Asia. Finally, Suen advised LVSI 

that a partnership with China Development Industrial Bank might 

obstruct its efforts to receive a gaming license in Macau: a sentiment 

shared by Jorge Oliveira, a Macanese government lawyer appointed to the 

tender commission by Macau's Chief Executive Edmund Ho. 

Therefore, we conclude Round Square presented substantial 

evidence that facilitating the Beijing meetings benefitted LVSI. However, 

we conclude a new trial is warranted as to damages, as substantial 

evidence does not support the jury's determination that the reasonable 

value of the services rendered amounted to $70 million. 

Round Square presented Walter Bratic, who testified that the 

reasonable value of Round Square's services was $328 million, including 

past and future damages. This amount was based solely on Bratic's 

estimated value of the success fee offered to Suen, which was itself 

...continued 

activities" and a process of "reciprocal gift giving." Jacob Harding, 

Corruption or Guanxi? Differentiating Between the Legitimate, Unethical, 

and Corrupt Activities of Chinese Government Officials, 31 UCLA Pac. 

Basin L.J. 127, 130-31 (2014). "The culture of reciprocal gifting to build 

relationships, including gaining social introductions to government 

officials, has been documented for centuries." Id. at 131. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 9 

(0) 1.947A 
primarily based on a percentage of LVSI's net profits. Bratic also 

compared the value of the success fee to the procurement deal. In 

determining the reasonable value of Round Square's services, Bratic 

admitted that he made no attempt to determine what others would have 

charged for similar services. 

Even assuming Bratic's testimony accurately identified the 

value of the success fee and the procurement deal, we hold that these 

metrics have a tenuous relationship with the reasonable value of Round 

Square's services in introducing LVSI to Chinese government officials. 

The "Hontract price and the reasonable value of services rendered are two 

separate things," and although the contract price may accurately capture 

the reasonable value of services rendered, it may also depart from it 

substantially. Maglica v. Maglica, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101, 105 (Ct. App. 

1998). For this reason, relying solely on the success fee does not ensure 

reasonable compensation for the value of Round Square's services, 

especially in light of the fact that the jury rejected Round Square's 

contract claim. 4 

As Round Square relied exclusively on Bratic's testimony, and 

as Bratic relied exclusively on contract damages to determine the value of 

Round Square's services, we hold there is not substantial evidence to 

support the jury's determination that the reasonable value of Round 

Square's services amounted to $70 million. We also decline to remit the 

damages award to LVSI's proposed amount of $1 million. Weidner simply 

estimated the number of hours Suen and his group might have worked 

4We have considered Round Square's other arguments on this issue 

and conclude that they are without merit. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 1 0 

(0) 19474 cife149 
and multiplied those hours by a general hourly rate. This model reflects 

that which we have previously rejected in Flamingo Realty, and we hold a 

proper trial as to damages is warranted. 110 Nev. at 988, 879 P.2d at 72. 

The district court did not commit any evidentiary errors that warrant 

reversal 

LVSI contends the district court abused its discretion in 

several hearsay rulings and in admitting certain expert testimony. 

Therefore, LVSI contends reversal is warranted. We disagree. 

We review a district court's determination regarding the 

admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Sheehan & Sheehan v. 

Nelson Malley & Co., 121 Nev. 481, 492,117 P.3d 219, 226 (2005). In the 

event of an abuse, such an evidentiary ruling does not warrant reversal if 

the error was harmless. NRCP 61; Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 

505, 189 P.3d 646, 654 (2008). To demonstrate prejudice, the appellant 

has the burden of proving "that, but for the error[s], a different result 

might reasonably have been expected." Hallmark, 124 Nev. at 505, 189 

P.3d at 654 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Even assuming the district court abused its discretion in 

admitting various pieces of evidence, we conclude such errors were 

harmless. The challenged admissions all relate to whether Round Square 

conferred a benefit onto LVSI. However, as stated earlier, there is 

substantial evidence in the record, apart from these purported errors, to 

support the conclusion that Round Square conferred some benefit onto 

LVSI. LVSI has not demonstrated that, but for the errors, one could 

reasonably have expected a different result. Therefore, we hold that the 

challenged admissions, even if in error, do not warrant reversal. 

The trial was not prejudiced by the presence of a biased juror or by the 

district court's statements concerning Round Square's case 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 11 

(0) 1947A 
LVSI argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying its motion for a mistrial or a new trial based on juror Martinez's 

undisclosed bias. We disagree. Whether a new trial is required due to a 

juror's undisclosed bias depends on whether the juror intentionally 

concealed his bias, a determination this court reviews for an abuse of 

discretion. McNally v. Walkowski, 85 Nev. 696, 701, 462 P.2d 1016, 1019 

(1969). 

Juror Martinez's supposed bias derives from a sarcastic 

comment made to juror Portillo during deliberations. Before the jury 

delivered its verdict, LVSI presented its request to remove Martinez as an 

"alternative, at some point ... to consider," if Martinez continued to cause 

problems after the court reread an instruction on the jury's duty to 

deliberate. LVSI never clearly requested the district court to remove 

Martinez and no other problems arose concerning juror Martinez's conduct 

after the instruction was read. Therefore, we conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) took steps to ensure that 

juror Portillo was willing and able to deliberate with juror Martinez, and 

(2) determined that calling the jury in and rereading an instruction on the 

jury's duty to deliberate would effectively address the situation. 

Lastly, LVSI contends the district court violated its right to a 

fair trial by improperly commenting on the evidence. However, LVSI did 

not object to any of the district court's allegedly improper statements, and 

therefore, LVSI has waived this argument. See Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel 

Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 416-17, 470 P.2d 135, 140-41 (1970) (stating a failure 

to object to a district court's improper comment on the evidence waives 

any claim of error). Therefore, we decline to address the merits of this 

argument. Accordingly, we 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 12 

(0) 1947A e 
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. 5 

Parraguirre 6 

itkat. de-att , 

Hardesty 

?"0,4 94 

Douglas 

Gibbons 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Alan M. Dershowitz 

Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP 

Morris Law Group 

Pisanelli Bice, PLLC 

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

5The Honorables Michael Cherry and Kristina Pickering, Justices, 

did not participate in the decision of this matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 13 

, C.J. 

J. 

J. 

(0) 1947A at*.