SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

CASH ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, A 

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; LLG HOLDINGS, LLC, A 

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; MUSTANG MEMORIES, 

LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; CASH PROCESSING 

SERVICES, LLC; AND NORTHERN 

NEVADA FUNDING, LLC, A NEVADA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 

Appellants, 

vs. 

TG INVESTMENTS, LLC, A NEVADA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 

Respondent. 

No. 65104 

FILED 

APR 1 5 2016 

TRRKkGiCIESKii.pLRNDvmAN BCyl_ssi E EME COURT 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER OF AFFIRIVANCE 

This is an appeal from a district court judgment• after a jury 

verdict in a contract and real property action. First Judicial District 

Court, Storey County; James E. Wilson, Judge. 

Respondent TG Investments, LLC (TGI) loaned appellant 

Cash Asset Management, LLC (CAM) $2,250,000 so that CAM could open 

and operate a brothel in Storey County. The loan was secured by a deed of 

trust on the real property where the brothel was located and required 

CAM to maintain a license for the brothel, fight any revocation of the 

license, and pay TGI interest including a percentage of the gross revenues. 

CAM stopped paying TGI the interest, and TGI filed the underlying 

action. While the action was pending, a Storey County ordinance 

(0) 1947A 

1(0 - M 88 8 
governing brothels was amended and the Storey County Brothel Licensing 

Board revoked the brothel's license. A jury found that CAM breached the 

contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Based on the 

jury's verdict, the district court entered a judgment against CAM finding 

that it owed TGI $1,909,378.67 and ordered the encumbered real property 

sold with the proceeds to be applied to CAM's debt to TGI. CAM filed 

motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to alter or 

amend the judgment, which were all denied. This appeal followed. 

Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that the district court properly denied CAM's original 

and renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law. See Nelson v. Heer, 

123 Nev. 217, 222-23, 163 P.3d 420, 424 (2007) (explaining that this court 

views the evidence and all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and 

reviews de novo an order denying a motion for judgment as a matter of 

law). CAM admitted that it breached the contract by acknowledging that 

it owed TGI $26,861 in underpaid interest and by conceding at trial that it 

failed to appeal the license revocation. Further, the jury could draw 

reasonable inferences from the evidence offered that CAM failed to fight 

the revocation of the license and that CAM influenced the amendment of 

the brothel ordinance and sought the revocation of the license in an effort 

to void its obligations to TGI. Thus, there was sufficient evidence 

supporting the jury's verdict that CAM breached the contract and the 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying CAM's motion for a new trial because there was no irregularity in 

the proceedings, the jury did not manifestly disregard the jury 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(01 1947A e 
instructions, and the damages were not excessive. See Bayerische Motoren 

Werke Aktiengesellschaft v. Roth, 127 Nev. 122, 133, 252 P.3d 649, 657 

(2011) (explaining that this court reviews the denial of a motion for a new 

trial for an abuse of discretion). While TGI elicited testimony concerning 

the appropriateness of the brothel license revocation, because such 

testimony was relevant to show arguments that CAM could have made if 

it had challenged the revocation, TGI did not make collateral attacks on 

the brothel ordinance or the Storey County Brothel Licensing Board's 

revocation of the license. Further, because there was no evidence that if 

TGI had applied for a brothel license, the brothel's license would not have 

been revoked, it was possible for the jury to reach its verdict while 

applying the jury instruction concerning mitigation of damages. See Price 

v. Sinnott, 85 Nev. 600, 606, 460 P.2d 837, 840 (1969) (providing that a 

new trial is unwarranted when it is possible for the jurors to reach the 

verdict that they reached after properly applying all jury instructions to 

the evidence presented at trial). Also, the damages awarded were not 

excessive as they were less than the amount of damages presented by one 

of the expert accountants. 

Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying CAM's motion to alter or amend the judgment's order for the sale 

of the property securing the debt. See AA Primo Builders, LLC v. 

Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589, 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) (explaining 

that this court reviews an order denying a motion to alter or amend a 

judgment for an abuse of discretion). TGI only pursued one action, the 

underlying action, to recover the debts owed to it by CAM. And after the 

jury found that CAM had breached the contract and the covenant of good 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
Cherry 

bons 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

faith and fair dealing and established the amount of CAM's debt, the court 

properly ordered the property sold under NRS 40.430 (2013) to satisfy the 

debt. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

\ J. 

Douglas 

Ckarvcv ,J. 

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge 

Debbie Leonard, Settlement Judge 

Gunderson Law Firm 

Law Offices of Mark Wray 

Storey County Clerk 

4 

(0) 1 1447A