IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83258 

FILED 

SEP 1 6 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK VPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLER1 

No. 83260 

EDGEWORTH FAMILY TRUST; AND 

AMERICAN GRATING, LLC, 

Appellants, 

vs. 

DANIEL S. SIMON; AND THE LAW 

OFFICE OF DANIEL S. SIMON, A 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 

D/B/A SIMON LAW, 

Res a ondents. 

EDGEWORTH FAMILY TRUST; AND 

AMERICAN GRATING, LLC, 

Appellants, 

vs. 

DANIEL S. SIMON; AND THE LAW 

OFFICE OF DANIEL S. SIMON, A 

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 

D/B/A SIMON LAW, 

Respondents. 

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

These consolidated appeals challenge the district court's 

adjudication of an attorney lien and award of quantum meruit fees. Eighth 

Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge. 

We previously issued an order between the same parties based 

on the same issue, which is whether the district court's award of $200,000 

in quantum meruit to respondent Daniel Simon was reasonable. See 

Edgeworth Family Tr. v. Simon, Nos. 77678/78176, 2020 WL 7828800, at *2 

(Nev. Dec. 30, 2020) (Order Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and 

Remanding). In our order, we vacated the district court's award, concluding 

that the district court's order was unclear with respect to whether the award 
was properly limited to solely the work Simon completed after he was 

constructively discharged by appellants Edgeworth Family Trust and 

American Grating, LLC (collectively, the Edgeworths). Id. Accordingly, we 

vacated the award, remanded the issue to the district court to make specific 

factual findings regarding what work Simon completed after his 

constructive discharge, and instructed the district court that any quantum 

meruit award should only compensate Simon for services provided postdischarge. Id. On remand, the district court again awarded Simon 

$200,000 in quantum meruit fees. 

The Edgeworths argue that the district court erred by failing to 

comply with our previous order on remand. They contend that the district 

court failed to make specific findings reflecting that its award was limited 

to the work Simon completed after he was constructively discharged by the 

Edgeworths. We agree. 

Although "[w]e review an award of attorney fees for an abuse of 

discretion," Logan v. Abe, 131 Nev. 260, 266, 350 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015), we 

review de novo "[w]hether the district court has complied with our mandate 

on remand," State Eng'r v. Eureka County, 133 Nev. 557, 559, 402 P.3d 

1249, 1251 (2017). When this court remands a case, "the district court must 

proceed in accordance with the mandate and the law of the case as 

established on appeal." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, a 

disposition from this court serves as mandatory authority in subsequent 

stages of the case. See NRAP 36(c)(2). 

As stated, we previously vacated the district court's award of 

quantum meruit fees to Simon because the order did not make specific 

findings that its award was limited to services Simon provided postdischarge. Edgeworth Family Tr., 2020 WL 7828800, at *2. Specific factual 

findings regarding what work Simon completed pre-discharge versus postSUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 44Mo 

2 
discharge is critical because a quantum meruit award can only properly 

compensate Simon for the services he provided post-discharge. Id. 

Turning to the district court's post-remand order, we conclude 

that the district court's order suffers from the same flaw as its previous 

order—the order does not make specific findings that clearly reflect that the 

quantum meruit award is limited to only services Simon provided postdischarge. Specifically, the district court's quantum meruit award is 

premised on the work Simon performed relating to the Edgeworths' 

settlement agreements. However, the district court's order notes that 

Simon began working on those settlement agreements before he was 

discharged. Thus, while Simon's work on the settlement agreements may 

consist of work he did both pre- and post-discharge, the district court's order 

does not make clear, nor include any specific findings of fact, that 

demonstrate that the quantum meruit fee is limited only to Simon's postdischarge services relating to the settlements. Further, the district court 

does not make any other findings of fact regarding work Simon completed 

post-discharge that would otherwise support the quantum meruit fee. For 

these reasons, it remains unclear whether the award of $200,000 in 

quantum meruit fees is reasonably limited only to the services Simon 

provided post-discharge. The district court therefore erred by failing to 

comply with our previous order which was mandatory authority. Thus, we 

again vacate the district court's award of $200,000 in quantum meruit fees. 

Insofar as the Edgeworths argue that we should award Simon 

$34,000 in quantum meruit fees based on Simon's billing statement that 

purportedly shows that he completed 71 hours of post-discharge work, we 

decline to do so. The district court found that the billing statement may not 

accurately reflect Simon's post-discharge work. Further, we decline to 

make factual findings on appeal. See Ryan's Express Transp. Servs., Inc. v. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A .4D). 

3 
Arnador Stage Lines, Inc., 128 Nev. 289, 299, 279 P.3d 166, 172 (2012) ("An 

appellate court is not particularly well-suited to make factual 

determinations in the first instance."). Because we will not make factual 

findings in the first instance, we also decline Simon's invitation to affirm 

the district court's order on the ground that the record supports an award 

of $200,000 in quantum meruit fees. Because no new findings were made 

on remand explaining the basis for such an award, we remain unable to 

determine whether $200,000 was a reasonable quantum meruit fee for 

Simon's post-discharge work. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court 

VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings 

consistent with this order. We further instruct the district court to make 

specific and express findings as to what work Simon completed after he was 

constructively discharged and limit its quantum meruit fee to those 

findings. 

4-ti n J. 

Hardesty 

/eksbc-4-0 J. 

Stiglich 

( 

J. 

Herndon 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 
cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge 

Morris Law Group 

James R. Christensen 

Christiansen Trial Lawyers 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0 1947A 

5