IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

GRANITE GAMING GROUP I, LLC 

D/B/A MERMAIDS CASINO, A NEVADA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND 

GRANITE GAMING GROUP III, LLC 

D/B/A LA BAYOU CASINO, A NEVADA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 

Appellants, 

vs. 

THE FREMONT STREET 

EXPERIENCE LLC, A NEVADA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 

JEFFREY VICTOR, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE 

FREMONT STREET EXPERIENCE 

LLC; GOLDEN GATE CASINO, LLC, A 

NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; GOLDEN GATE 

EXPERIENCE, INC., A NEVADA 

CORPORATION; MARK 

BRANDENBURG, AN INDIVIDUAL; 

DROCK GAMING, LLC, D/B/A THE D 

(F/K/A FITZ AND/OR FITZGERALD'S), 

A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; GNLV CORP. D/B/A 

GOLDEN NUGGET HOTEL & CASINO, 

A NEVADA CORPORATION; FOUR 

QUEENS, LLC, D/B/A FOUR QUEENS, 

A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY; VINTAGE VEGAS 

GAMING, LLC, D/B/A BINION'S 

GAMBLING HALL & HOTEL, A 

NEVADA CORPORATION; CITY OF 

LAS VEGAS;AND CAROLYN 

No. 64549 

FILED 

APR 1 1 2016 

TRACIE K. LINCEmAN 

CLERFLOF SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I997A ae). 
GOODMAN, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MAYOR ONLY AND 

NOT IN ANY PERSONAL CAPACITY, 

Respondents. 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion 

for a preliminary injunction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark 

County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge. A district court has discretion in 

deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction and its decision "will 

be reversed only where the district court abused its discretion or based its 

decision on an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of 

fact." Boulder Oaks Cmty. Ass'n v. B & J Andrews Enters., LLC, 125 Nev. 

397, 403, 215 P.3d 27, 31(2009) (internal quotations omitted). We affirm. 

Appellant Granite Gaming Group (Granite Gaming) is suing 

respondents in order to prohibit Fremont Street Experience from allowing 

its casino members to build outdoor permanent bars that encroach onto 

city land. Granite Gaming filed a motion for a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary, injunction. The district court granted the 

temporary restraining order, but after an evidentiary hearing, denied the 

preliminary injunction on the ground that Granite Gaming had not 

demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits. Granite 

Gaming appeals. 

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must 

show that it "enjoys a reasonable probability of success on the merits and 

that the defendant's conduct, if allowed to continue, will result in 

irreparable harm for which compensatory damage is an inadequate 

remedy." Dixon v. Thatcher, 103 Nev. 414, 415, 742 P.2d 1029, 1029 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
(1987). "[T]he irreparable harm must be articulated in specific terms by 

the issuing order or be sufficiently apparent elsewhere in the record." 

Dep't of Conservation and Nat. Res., Div. of Water Res. v. Foley, 121 Nev. 

77, 80, 109 P.3d 760, 762 (2005). 

The district court denied preliminary injunctive relief based 

on its determination that Granite Gaming did not demonstrate a sufficient 

probability of success on the merits to warrant an injunction. As 

respondents note in their answering brief, we do not need to reach the 

likelihood of success on the merits because Granite Gaming failed to show 

irreparable harm. See Gelco Corp. v. Coniston Partners, 811 F.2d 414, 418 

(8th Cir. 1987) ("The failure to show irreparable harm is, by itself, a 

sufficient ground upon which to deny a preliminary injunction ...."). 

Granite Gaming asserts that "[firreparable harm is conclusively presumed 

where there is a violation of statute involving the use of land." But 

Granite Gaming cites no legal authority for this assertion and therefore, 

we will decline to credit it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 

P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present relevant 

authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be 

addressed by this court."). 

Granite Gaming has made no other arguments nor pointed to 

any facts showing the threat of irreparable harm. Therefore, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Granite Gaming's motion for 

a preliminary injunction. Accordingly we, 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e 
Saitta 

J. 

J. 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

Parraguirre 

, J. 

Hardesty 

"The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Justice, is disqualified and did not 

participate in the decision of this matter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(C) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge 

Ara H• Shirinian, Settlement Judge 

The Jimmerson Law Firm, P.0 

Lovato Law Firm, P.C. 

Las Vegas City Attorney 

Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Little 

Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas 

Pisanelli Bice, PLLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A mem