ELIZABET. A. BROWN CL OF S EW COURT D Ury LEM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 83184 

# FILE AUG 1 1 2022

ORDER OFAFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order denying a preliminaryinjunction in a realpropertyboundary dispute. EighthJudicial District Court, Clark County; Crystal Eller, Judge.'

Appellants Bo and Dan Jones and respondent Hamed Ghadiri
are neighbors whose properties are separated by a concrete wall built in approximately 1989, more than 20 years before the parties purchased their respective homes. After obtaininga survey, Ghadiri obtained a permit from the City of Las Vegas authorizing him to demolish the wall and rebuild it
on the correct property line because, according to the survey, a portion of the Joneses' recreational vehicle driveway was located on Ghadiri's land. Upon learningofGhadiri's plans to demolish the wall, the Joneses filed the underlying complaint seeking to establish a continued right to use the disputedproperty. TheJoneses alsoobtained a temporaryrestrainingorder enjoining Ghadiri from demolishingthe wall. In response, Ghadiri asserted counterclaims including seeking to quiet title. Shortly thereafter, the district court granted Ghadiri's motion for partial summary judgment, entered judgment in his favor on all ofthe Joneses' claims, and denied the

1Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted. BO JONES;AND DAN JONES, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Appellants, vS. HAMED GHADIRI, AN INDIVIDUAL, Res•ondent.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 

## Z- 2-z510Joneses' request for a preliminary injunction. The Joneses filed the instant

appeal, seeking to challenge both the district court's grant of partial summaryjudgment and its refusal to issue a preliminary injunction. This court dismissed this appeal as to the district court's partial summary judgment because it was not a final judgment as some of Ghadiri's counterclaims remain unresolved. Jones v. Ghadiri, No. 83184 (Order Dismissing Appeal in Part, Reinstating Briefing, and Granting Stay) (Oct. 1, 2021). "Apreliminary injunction isproper where the movingparty can demonstrate that it has a reasonable likelihood ofsuccesson the merits and that, absent a preliminary injunction, it will suffer irreparable harm for which compensatory damages would not suffice." Excellence Cmty. Mgmt.
v. Gilmore, 131 Nev. 347, 350-51, 351 P.3d 720, 722 (2015). The district court here found that, because the Joneses' claims had been summarily adjudicated, they could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the meritsoftheir claims suchthat injunctive reliefwas unavailable. We agree.

Although the scope of this appeal is limited to the district court'srefusal to grant apreliminaryinjunction, the majorityoftheJoneses' arguments go toward the propriety ofthe district court's partial summary judgment. Because a party seeking a preliminary injunction must first demonstrate that theyhave a substantiallikelihood ofsuccesson the merits oftheir claims, whether the district court here properly denied the Joneses' request for injunctive reliefisnecessarilyintertwined with the merits ofthe district court'spartial summaryjudgment. We decline, however, to consider any ofthe Joneses' arguments in this regard, as they go beyond the limited scope ofthis appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVAOA (0) 1947A 2Parraguirre

, J. Silver r..

Because injunctive relief is only appropriate when it appears "that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded," NRS 33.010(1), and all of the Joneses' claims for relief were resolved by the district court's partial summaryjudgment, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Joneses' request for a preliminary injunction.2 See Labor Comm'r ofthe State ofNeu. u. Littlefield, 123 Nev. 35, 38-39, 153 P.3d 26, 28 (2007) (reviewing a district court's decision to deny a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion). Based upon the foregoing, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED and vacate our stay ofthe district court's order.3

cc: Hon. Crystal Eller, District Judge Thomas J. Tanksley, Settlement Judge Black & Wadhams Dziminski Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

2Because we conclude that the Joneses could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on their dismissed claims, we need not address the Joneses' argument that the district court failed to properly balance the equities.

3The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision ofthis matter under a general order ofassignment.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 3