ELFZAFtr A. DR 01.AiN 

CLE F r.c 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83763 

FILED 

OCT 11 2022 

MARGARET REDDY; MOHAN 

THALAMARLA; AND MAX GLOBAL, 

INC., 

Appellants, 

vs. 

MEDAPPEAL, LLC, AN ILLINOIS 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a postjudgment award of attorney fees. 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Adriana Escobar, Judge.' 

In a previous appeal, this court affirmed the district court's 

decision to grant summary judgment in respondent's favor. See Reddy v. 

Medappeal, LLC, No. 83253, 2022 WL 2197101 (Nev. June 17, 2022) (Order 

of Affirmance). In doing so, we rejected appellants' argument that 

respondent needed to be licensed in Nevada as a limited liability company 

(LLC) in order to file the underlying lawsuit. Id. at *2. The basis for our 

conclusion was NRS 86.5483(1), which provides that "fflor the purposes of 

NRS 86.543 to 86.549, inclusive, the following activities do not constitute 

transacting business in this State: [m]aintaining, defending or settling any 

proceeding." Id. (quoting NRS 82.5483(1)). In particular, we reasoned that 

Iplursuing a legal action appears to fall squarely within this definition, and 

appellants do not argue otherwise." Id. 

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument 

is not warranted. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I947A 2 Z - 3 2-°-.3) 
Now in this appeal, appellants do "argue otherwise." Namely, 

they contend that "maintaining" and "commencing" have different 

meanings, and that respondent needed to be licensed in Nevada to 

"commence" the underlying action.2 We decline to consider this argument, 

both because it is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine and because it was 

not raised in district court.3 See Recontrust Co. v. Zhang, 130 Nev. 1, 7-8, 

317 P.3d 814, 818 (2014) ("The law-of-the-case doctrine refers to a family of 

rules embodying the general concept that a court involved in later phases 

of a lawsuit should not re-open questions decided (i.e., established as law of 

the case) by that court or a higher one in earlier phases." (internal quotation 

marks omitted)); Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975) 

("The doctrine of the law of the case cannot be avoided by a more detailed 

and precisely focused argument subsequently made after reflection upon 

the previous proceedings."); see also Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 

49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (recognizing that this court need not 

consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal). Because appellants 

2Appellants also reiterate their argument that a corporation must be 

qualified to do business in Nevada as a prerequisite for filing a lawsuit in 

Nevada. While appellants' relied-upon authorities support the proposition 

that qualification is a prerequisite for a corporation actually doing business 

in Nevada, we are not persuaded that those authorities apply to the 

respondent LLC that undisputedly did not conduct any business in Nevada. 

3In this, we note that respondent relied on NRS 86.5483 in its August 

13, 2021, district court filing, such that appellants had multiple 

opportunities to contest respondent's position before doing so for the first 

time in this appeal. Despite the untimely argument, we deny respondent's 

request for sanctions under NRAP 38. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NCVADA 

(0) I947A 4DID 

2 
, Sr.J. 

Parraguirre 

J. 

Herndon 

have not provided any other argument in support of reversing the district 

court's attorney fee award,4 we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.5

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge 

Stephen E. Haberfeld, Settlement Judge 

The Wasielewski Law Firm, Ltd. 

The Ball Law Group LLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4To the extent that appellants are challenging the district court's 

October 25, 2021, order, we are not persuaded that reversal is warranted. 

5The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(€» 1947A 

3