Opinion ID: 1255717
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding the Semenzas attorney's fees.

Text: The district court granted the Semenzas attorney's fees based on NRS 18.010. NRS 18.010(1) provides: The compensation of an attorney and counselor for his services is governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law. In their post-trial motions, the Semenzas urged the district court to grant attorney's fees based on a broadly worded purchase agreement, which provided as follows: In the event of any action between Buyer and Seller seeking enforcement of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or in connection with the Property, the prevailing party in such action shall be awarded, in addition to damages, injunctive, or other relief, its reasonable costs and expenses, including but not limited to taxable court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. This action resulting from the flooding of the Semenzas' basement was in connection with the Property, and the Semenzas, as between the buyer and seller, were the prevailing party. [3] Consequently, we conclude that the district court did not err in awarding the Semenzas their reasonable attorney's fees. We therefore affirm the district court's award of attorney's fees to the Semenzas. We believe it unnecessary to remand the case to the district court to apportion the fees that the Semenzas' attorney expended in pursuit of claims against Means as opposed to those against Caughlin because the efforts made to expose Means' negligence individually were intertwined with efforts to prove that Caughlin, acting through Means and other agents and employees, was negligent. An officer of a corporation may be individually liable for any tort which he commits, and, if the tort is committed within the scope of employment, the corporation may be vicariously or secondarily liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. See Donsco, Inc. v. Casper Corp., 587 F.2d 602, 606 (3d Cir.1978). We have considered all other arguments presented in the parties' briefs, supplemental motions, and during oral argument, and conclude that they are without merit.