SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

This court reviews summary judgments de novo. Wood v. 

.Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Summary 

judgment is appropriate if the pleadings and other evidence on file, viewed 

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrate that no 

genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute and that the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. To withstand 

summary judgment, the nonmoving party cannot rely solely on general 

allegations and conclusions set forth in the pleadings, but must instead 

present specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual 

issue supporting his claims. NRCP 56(e); see also Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 

121 P.3d at 1030-31. 

Having reviewed appellant's opening brief and the record on 

appeal, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary 

judgment in respondents' favor. In their motion for summary judgment, 

respondents argued that they did not violate any of the statutes relied 

upon by appellant in his complaint because they did not place the phone 

calls at issue to appellant, nor did they control the means or method by 

which the contact with appellant was made. Respondents contended that 

they had contracted with a third party for marketing, who in turn 

subcontracted with a company, named Holiday Tours, that made the 

phone calls to appellant. In his opposition to the motion for summary 

judgment, however, appellant argued that genuine issues of material fact 

remained regarding Healthy Body Imaging Centers' liability for the 

alleged TCPA violations. 

Appellant specifically argued that a seller can be held liable 

for TCPA violations committed by third-party telemarketers based on 

principles of agency. Under federal law, a person can sue for damages for 

do-not-call violations "by or on behalf of' a company. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) 

(2013). In addition, the Federal Communications Commission has noted 

2 

(0) 1947A ee 
Douglas 

, J. J. 

that the purpose of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act would be 

thwarted if sellers were permitted to hide behind the illegal acts of their 

authorized telemarketers, who may be located offshore or judgment proof, 

but allowed to benefit from the acts of those telemarketers. In re Dish 

Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd 6574, 6588-89 (2013) (declaratory ruling). 

Appellant also contended that the phone calls at issue in his complaint 

were made before the date of the marketing contract that respondents 

relied on in their summary judgment motion, and thus, genuine issues of 

material fact remained regarding whether Holiday Tours in fact made the 

calls to appellant and whether Healthy Body Imaging Center may be 

directly liable to appellant for the calls under the consumer protection 

statutes. 

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that appellant adequately 

demonstrated that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding 

whether respondents are liable• to appellant under the consumer 

protection statutes for the phone calls at issue. The district court 

therefore erred in entering summary judgment in respondents' favor. See 

NRCP 56(e); see also Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1030-31. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings 

consistent with this order. 

--1----142sratilen Parraguirre C 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e 
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Paul D.S. Edwards 

Healthy Body Imaging Centers 

Michael Napoli 

Ramon San Nicolas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

Of 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A