Opinion ID: 2570657
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Wynn's appeal from the district court's order denying it attorney fees

Text: In its appeal, the Wynn challenges the district court's order denying its motion for attorney fees under NRS 18.010(2)(b). This court reviews district court orders refusing to award attorney fees for an abuse of discretion. [44] Under NRS 18.010(2)(b), the district court may award attorney fees to a prevailing party when it finds that a claim was frivolous or brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party. Determining whether attorney fees should be awarded under NRS 18.010(2)(b) requires the court to inquire into the actual circumstances of the case, rather than a hypothetical set of facts favoring plaintiff's averments. [45] As the Wynn points out, NRS 18.010(2)(b) must be liberally construed in favor of awarding attorney fees whenever appropriate. [46] Here, the Wynn asserts that appellants' claims were brought without reasonable grounds because the labor statutes clearly do not provide for any private cause of action under NRS 608.160, NRS 608.100, or NRS 613.120 and because appellants concededly were at-will employees with no definite employment contract. Moreover, the Wynn points out, appellants were on notice of the Labor Commissioner's opinion that the modified tip-pooling policy did not violate Nevada law, based on a press release that was issued shortly before appellants instituted their district court action. As a result, the Wynn contends that appellants clearly brought their claims without reasonable grounds. In response, appellants note that the issues raised by their complaint, including whether a cause of action exists under NRS 608.160 and the other labor laws and whether the tip-pooling procedures at issue here were lawful policy modifications, have never been reviewed by this court. Further, they assert that, under the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Nevada law, [47] they had arguable grounds for asserting a breach of contract claim. As this opinion illustrates, the law in this matter is complex and was unsettled. Since appellants raised reasonably supportable, if not ultimately successful, arguments, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that appellants' claims were brought with reasonable grounds and in denying the Wynn's motion for attorney fees. [48]