ELIZABET. A. BROWN 

CL OF S EW COURT 

D U ry LEM 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83184 

FILE 

AUG 1 1 2022 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a 

preliminary injunction in a real property boundary dispute. Eighth Judicial 

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 obtaining a 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 learning of Ghadiri's plans to demolish the wall, the Joneses filed the 

underlying complaint seeking to establish a continued right to use the 

disputed property. The Joneses also obtained a temporary restraining order 

enjoining Ghadiri from demolishing the 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 of the 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, 

v S. 

HAMED GHADIRI, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Res • ondent. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A Z- 2- z510 
Joneses' request for a preliminary injunction. The Joneses filed the instant 

appeal, seeking to challenge both the district court's grant of partial 

summary judgment 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). 

"A preliminary injunction is proper where the moving party can 

demonstrate that it has a reasonable likelihood of success on 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 

merits of their claims such that injunctive relief was unavailable. We agree. 

Although the scope of this appeal is limited to the district 

court's refusal to grant a preliminary injunction, the majority of the Joneses' 

arguments go toward the propriety of the district court's partial summary 

judgment. Because a party seeking a preliminary injunction must first 

demonstrate that they have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits 

of their claims, whether the district court here properly denied the Joneses' 

request for injunctive relief is necessarily intertwined with the merits of the 

district court's partial summary judgment. We decline, however, to consider 

any of the Joneses' arguments in this regard, as they go beyond the limited 

scope of this appeal. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVAOA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Parraguirre 

, 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 summary judgment, 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 of the State of Neu. 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 of the 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 of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3