Opinion ID: 2510533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Thomas and Armstrong's motion for attorney fees

Text: After the district court compelled arbitration, the NLVPOA issued a position statement in which it said that it had reexamined the arbitration situation, specifically as it related to Thomas and Armstrong. The NLVPOA said that it believed that its initial position was erroneous and its new position was that Thomas and Armstrong were entitled to arbitrate their grievances. It also stated that, had it taken that position from the inception of their grievances and requests for arbitration, the arbitration would have occurred as a matter of course and the entire litigation would have been avoided. Under the terms of the CBA, the City would not have [had] any option but to arbitrate their terminations if arbitration had been requested by the [NLVPOA]. Thomas and Armstrong then moved for attorney fees, arguing that they were entitled to attorney fees under the substantial benefit exception to the American rule, NRS 18.010(2)(a) (recovery under $20,000), and NRS 18.010(2)(b) (groundless defenses). The district court denied their motion, and Thomas and Armstrong appealed that order to this court.