Court Opinion

ID: 9613479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:17:24.434924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:29.419677
License: Public Domain

Mowbray, C. J.,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent.
It is tempting to join in the majority’s decision. After all, reversing the district court’s award of summary judgment does not mean that Atwell’s claim carries the day. Rather, the majority opinion only ensures that Atwell shall have his day in court.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to dissent. Though a trial court should exercise great care in granting a motion for summary judgment, it should not postpone judgment for the defendant (or plaintiff for that matter) where the ultimate legal result is clearly mandated. Even a groundless suit costs money to defend, and the cost rises dramatically and senselessly if allowed to proceed to trial. Moreover, farcical trials of this sort inexcusably consume great amounts of scarce judicial resources — resources ultimately paid for out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
Atwell alleges that a verbal contract existed between himself and respondent with respect to the sale of the Marina Hotel. In support of this allegation, he offers several letters that he wrote to the parties to the transaction. In response to these letters, however, Atwell received only a fact sheet containing price information for the property in question. Respondent sent similar fact sheets to hundreds of others who inquired about the possible sale *827of the Marina Hotel. If Atwell’s scant evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact, then these hundreds of others have equally plausible causes of action.
Though the pleadings and proof offered below must be reviewed in a light most favorable to Atwell, Morrow v. Barger, 103 Nev. 247, 737 P.2d 1153 (1987), he “ ‘is not entitled to build a case on the gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation, and conjecture.’” Collins v. Union Fed. Savings & Loan, 99 Nev. 284, 302, 662 P.2d 610, 621 (1983) (quoting Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461, 467 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904 (1976)). Atwell’s claim is groundless. The district court appropriately ordered summary judgment for the respondent.