Court Opinion

ID: 9759462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:17:13.748143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:01.882960
License: Public Domain

Cherry, J.,
dissenting:
The majority adopts the position that during the period that a newly filed case is awaiting exemption from the court-annexed arbitration program, the case is subject to, but not actually in, the court-annexed arbitration program. This conclusion makes little sense, and it creates a situation in which a party is required to opt out of a program that the party’s case is supposedly not even in. Accordingly, I must dissent.
The stated purpose of the court-annexed arbitration program and its associated rules “is to provide a simplified procedure for obtaining a prompt and equitable resolution of certain civil matters.” NAR 2(A). To that end, NAR 5 plainly outlines an opt-out process in which a case is deemed to be in the court-annexed arbitration program until a party’s request to be released from the program is approved by the arbitration commissioner or the district court.
While the majority seems to conclude that its approach to this issue is necessary to harmonize NAR 5’s exemption-procedure language with the language contained in NAR 4(C) (setting forth which rules govern the procedures applicable to a case based on whether the case has been “submitted or ordered to” or “accepted or remanded into” the program), I strongly disagree that such an approach is practicable or necessary.1
It is well established that this court will interpret statutes in harmony, so as to render no part of a statute mere surplusage. Albios *519v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 122 Nev. 409, 418, 132 P.3d 1022, 1028 (2006). Here, achieving a uniform construction is simply not possible. As the majority points out, “[t]he Nevada Arbitration Rules do not . . . specifically spell out what events or actions must occur in order for a case to be placed into the program.” Majority opinion ante at 514. Thus, by their own admission, the majority seeks to salvage language that is neither explained nor given effect by the rules. In so doing, the majority merely glosses over the readily apparent conflict between requiring that cases be submitted, ordered, or remanded into the program in order to actually be in the program and the opt-out procedure embodied in NAR 5. As a consequence, the majority allows this otherwise unexplained “submitted or ordered to” or “accepted or remanded into” language to control the resolution of this issue, despite the clear language of NAR 5 that plainly anticipates the use of an opt-out approach for cases that are not automatically exempted on the initial pleading.
Confiisingly, the majority asserts that their conclusion regarding when cases are deemed to be in or out of the arbitration program somehow “makes perfect sense in the overall context and design” of the NRCP and the NAR, based on the fact that NRCP 16.1(b)(1) sets forth discovery conference deadlines for cases not in the program while NAR 11 sets discovery conference deadlines for program cases. Majority opinion ante at 516. A determination as to which rule — NRCP 16.1(b)(1) or NAR 11 — applies to a case, however, is predicated on whether a case is actually in the program at a particular time. Given that the purpose of this opinion is to set forth when a case is or is not deemed to be in the program, the fact that the NRCP and NAR set forth different discovery conference deadlines based on whether a case is or is not in the program provides no support for the majority’s position regarding when cases are actually in the program. Indeed, NRCP 16.1(b)(1) and NAR 11 would likewise govern discovery conference deadlines for cases, depending on whether they are or are not in the program, under the position I would adopt — that a case is in the program until an exemption is granted. If the exemption is denied, the case would remain in the program and the deadlines set forth in NAR 11 would control. If a case is exempted from the program, then the NRCP 16.1(b)(1) deadlines would begin to run from the date of exemption.
This last point is the key difference between my view and the tack taken by the majority. Under the majority’s position, when a case subject to the program is not automatically exempted, the plaintiff is forced to juggle two sets of competing deadlines. Specifically, the plaintiff must file his or her request for exemption within 20 days of the date the defendant’s answer is filed (NAR *5205(A)), then wait out the 5-day opposition period (NAR 5(B)) and however long it takes the arbitration commissioner to resolve; the exemption request. A party unhappy with the commissioner’s decision has an additional five days to object to that decision (NAR 5(D)), after which the parties must wait for the district court to finally resolve the issue. NAR 5(E). Meanwhile, a plaintiff who has complied with each of these deadlines must watch the clock continue to run on NRCP 16.1(b)(l)’s 30-day early case conference deadline. Given the heavy case load burdening this state’s district courts, it would be extremely difficult for a plaintiff to have his or her exemption request finally determined prior to the expiration of the initial 30-day NRCP 16.1(b)(1) period.
The end result of the majority’s approach is that a plaintiff who complies with each of the exemption deadlines will, in most cases, have to request an extension of the NRCP 16.1(b)(1) deadline in order to comply with the requirements of that rule and avoid having his or her case rule-booked out of the district court on procedural grounds. In stark contrast, if cases subject to the arbitration program are deemed to be in the program until an exemption is granted, the NRCP 16.1 deadlines would not begin to run until the case is exempted and the plaintiff would have the full 30-day window to comply with the requirements of NRCP 16.1(b)(1), which, in many cases, would obviate the need to seek an extension of the NRCP 16.1(b)(1) period.
In light of these considerations, I would apply the plain language of NAR 5’s clearly explained opt-out process, rather than attempt to breathe life into NAR 4(C)’s unexplained “submitted or ordered to” or “accepted or remanded into” language. As a result, I would conclude that appellants’ case was in the program until it was exempted on March 29, 2007, and that, as a result, considering NRCP 16.1(b)(1) and NAR 4(C), NRCP 16.1(e)(2)’s 240-day time period did not start to run until the date of exemption— March 29, 2007. Using this approach, because appellants filed a case conference report on November 21, 2007, which is within the 240-day period, I would conclude that they complied with NRCP 16.1(e)(2)’s requirements, so that dismissal on that basis was an abuse of discretion. See Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 414, 168 P.3d 1050, 1052 (2007) (setting forth this court’s standard of review for NRCP 16.1(e)(2) dismissals). Given the confusing and contradictory language used in the Nevada Arbitration Rules and this court’s oft stated preference for deciding cases on the merits, see, e.g., Hansen v. Universal Health Servs., 112 Nev. 1245, 1247-48, 924 P.2d 1345, 1346 (1996) (noting this court’s preference that cases be decided on the merits); Hotel Last Frontier v. Frontier Prop., 79 Nev. 150, 155, 380 P.2d 293, 295 (1963) (same), such a conclusion represents the only just and equitable resolution of this matter.
*521Putting aside the merits of this particular case, in light of the confusing and contradictory language contained in the Nevada Arbitration Rules at issue in this appeal, I believe that the majority misses the bigger picture. Rather than correct the clear inconsistencies with the current incarnation of these rules through the rule-amendment process, the majority superficially attempts to harmonize rules that, in my view, simply cannot be harmonized. This effort is unnecessary, as an amendment to the rules would allow the court to address these issues in a clear, logical, and consistent fashion, so as to provide appropriate guidance to litigants and the district courts, rather than creating a makeshift solution that is inconsistent with the language and intent of one of the very rules the majority seeks to interpret and apply. Unfortunately, the majority’s solution to dealing with the admittedly contradictory language in the Nevada Arbitration Rules merely adds confusion and complexity to the process. Accordingly, I dissent.

Similar “submitted or ordered to” language also appears in NAR 3(D) (allowing “(pjarties to cases submitted or ordered to the program” to agree to be bound by the results of the arbitration) and NAR 4(F) (stating that “[o]nce a case is submitted or ordered to the program all parties subsequently joined in the action shall be parties to the arbitration unless dismissed by the district judge to whom the case is assigned”).