Opinion ID: 2630324
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Board properly joined Dutchess and Legend

Text: Dutchess and Legend argue that they were wrongfully joined as defendants at the hearing because they did not participate in the same transactions or series of transactions constituting any of the offenses. That argument is unpersuasive. Initially, we acknowledge the absence of controlling Nevada law governing joinder of parties in administrative proceedings. Although NRCP 19 and NRCP 20 allow for mandatory and permissive joinder of parties, respectively, in civil proceedings, NRCP 1 states that Nevada's rules of civil procedure govern the procedure in the district courts in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity. Thus, NRCP 19 and NRCP 20 are not binding on a state agency in an adjudicatory proceeding, unless expressly adopted by the agency. [11] Notwithstanding the absence of express statutory authority, we determine that the Board was within its discretion to join Dutchess and Legend. Such a determination is within the broad scope of discretion afforded to the Board as an administrative agency. [12] In this case, the Board did not abuse its discretion by joining Dutchess and Legend. Specifically, the evidence showed that Legend acquired Dutchess in a stock purchase, that Legend conducted its operations at the same facilities as Dutchess, and that Legend continued transacting business with Rekcus after Dutchess ended its own operations. We further determine that Dutchess and Legend have failed to establish that either suffered undue prejudice as a result of joinder. Although they allege that the Board penalized Legend for aspects of Dutchess's wrongdoing, as we discuss in greater detail below, the Board did not fine Legend for Dutchess's violations. Dutchess and Legend fail to claim or establish any other instances of undue prejudice. Accordingly, we conclude that Dutchess and Legend did not suffer undue prejudice resulting from their joinder.