IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 83258 

# FILED
SEP 1 6 2022
ELIZABETHA. BROWN CLERK VPREME COURT BY DEPUTYCLER1 No. 83260 EDGEWORTH FAMILYTRUST; 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, Resaondents. EDGEWORTH FAMILYTRUST;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 JUDGMENTANDREMANDING

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A These consolidated appeals challenge the district court's

adjudication ofan attorneylien and award ofquantum 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 EdgeworthFamily Tr. v. Simon, Nos. 77678/78176, 2020WL 7828800, at *2 (Nev. Dec. 30, 2020) (Order Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding). Inour order, wevacatedthedistrict court'saward, concluding thatthe districtcourt'sorderwasunclear withrespecttowhethertheawardwas 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, remandedthe issue tothe district courtto 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 Edgeworthsargue that the district court erredbyfailingto 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 awardofattorneyfeesfor an abuse of discretion,"Logan v.Abe, 131Nev. 260, 266, 350 P.3d 1139, 1143(2015), we review de novo"[w]hether the district court hascomplied with our mandate
on remand," State Eng'r v. Eureka County, 133 Nev. 557, 559, 402 P.3d 1249, 1251(2017). Whenthiscourt remands a case, "the districtcourt 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 stagesofthe 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. EdgeworthFamily Tr., 2020WL 7828800, at *2. Specificfactual findings regarding what work Simon completed pre-discharge versus postSUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 44Mo 2discharge is critical because a quantum meruit award can only properly

compensate Simon for the serviceshe 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—theorder doesnot make specificfindingsthat clearlyreflectthatthe 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 consistofworkhe didbothpre-andpost-discharge, thedistrict court'sorder 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'saward 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 ofpost-discharge work, we declinetodoso. The district court found that thebillingstatement 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). 3Arnador Stage Lines, Inc., 128Nev. 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'spost-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 expressfindingsastowhat work Simon completed afterhe 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 4cc: 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