Opinion ID: 2591389
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The law-of-the-case doctrine

Text: In this appeal, CPCI argues that the issue in the prior appeal broadly answered the question whether there was a statutory defense precluding the litigation of the underlying claims. If so, CPCI maintains that the law-of-the-case doctrine prevents this same issue from being argued to the district court again. Specifically, CPCI claims that our previous orderholding that NRS 687A.095 was not applicablealso resolved the vast horizon of possible statutory defenses that could have been raised in this case, including Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.775, and required the district court to proceed to trial. We disagree. The law-of-the-case doctrine provides that when an appellate court decides a principle or rule of law, that decision governs the same issues in subsequent proceedings in that case. Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 629, 173 P.3d 724, 728 (2007); Wheeler Springs Plaza, LLC v. Beemon, 119 Nev. 260, 266, 71 P.3d 1258, 1262 (2003). In order for the law-of-the-case doctrine to apply, the appellate court must actually address and decide the issue explicitly or by necessary implication. Snow-Erlin v. U.S., 470 F.3d 804, 807 (9th Cir.2006). However, the doctrine does not bar a district court from hearing and adjudicating issues not previously decided, see id., and does not apply if the issues presented in a subsequent appeal differ from those presented in a previous appeal. Emeterio v. Clint Hurt and Assocs., 114 Nev. 1031, 1034, 967 P.2d 432, 434 (1998); Bone v. City of Lafayette, Ind., 919 F.2d 64, 66 (7th Cir.1990) (Subjects an appellate court does not discuss, because the parties did not raise them, do not become the law of the case by default.) Here, we conclude that the district court could entertain a renewed summary judgment motion based on an alternate statutory defense. Our previous order was narrow and strictly determined that NRS 687A.095 did not apply to this case because the claim was not a covered claim under NRS 687A.033, which requires that either the claimant or insured be a resident of Nevada. Neither CPCI nor Creative is a resident of Nevada. As a result, we ordered the district court to conduct further proceedings. Although the application of Mo.Rev. Stat. § 375.772 was presented in the amicus brief filed days prior to the oral argument in the previous appeal, our order did not explicitly or impliedly decide whether Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.772 was applicable. Pursuant to the law-of-the-case doctrine, NRS 687A.095 cannot be applied as a statutory defense to the underlying claims. However, our prior order did not compel the district court to proceed to trial, nor did it preclude the district court from addressing alternate statutory defenses or other pretrial dispositional motions. [2] Because our previous order did not determine the applicability of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 375.772 or other possible legal defenses, we conclude that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar the district court from considering alternate legal defenses through another motion for summary judgment. [3] See also Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 910-11 (9th Cir. 2010) (the rules do not prohibit successive summary judgment motions if appropriate).