IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
`
`No. 57724 FILED
`JUL 2 4 2013
`
`CURTIS COE,
`Appellant,
`vs.
`MARCO CENTENO-ALVAREZ,
`Respondent.
`
`TRAC1E K. LINDEMAN
`CLERC.OF UPREME COU
`Y
`•
`ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, VACATING IN PART AIVI9EPuTY cLERK
`REMANDING
`
`BY ..._.
`
`This is an appeal from a district court judgment in a tort
`
`action and from post-judgment orders denying a new trial and awarding
`
`attorney fees and costs.
`
`Appellant Curtis Coe failed to stop at a stop sign and his
`
`vehicle collided with another driven by Respondent Marco Centeno-
`
`Alvarez. Coe admitted his liability, but disputed the amount of damages.
`
`Prior to trial, Centeno-Alvarez presented Coe with an offer of
`
`judgment in the sum of $1,250,000 pursuant to NRCP 68 and NRS 17.115.
`
`Coe did not accept the offer and it lapsed. Following a jury trial, Centeno-
`
`Alvarez was awarded $36,465 in past damages along with prejudgment
`
`and post-judgment interest. However, the district court granted Centeno-
`
`Alvarez's motion for a new trial. Coe appealed and this court affirmed,
`
`concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in ordering a
`
`new trial.
`
`SUPREME COURT
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 1947A
`
`3 - 2 ) 11 $
`
`
`
`No. 57724 FILED
`JUL 2 4 2013
`
`CURTIS COE,
`Appellant,
`vs.
`MARCO CENTENO-ALVAREZ,
`Respondent.
`
`TRAC1E K. LINDEMAN
`CLERC.OF UPREME COU
`Y
`•
`ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART, VACATING IN PART AIVI9EPuTY cLERK
`REMANDING
`
`BY ..._.
`
`This is an appeal from a district court judgment in a tort
`
`action and from post-judgment orders denying a new trial and awarding
`
`attorney fees and costs.
`
`Appellant Curtis Coe failed to stop at a stop sign and his
`
`vehicle collided with another driven by Respondent Marco Centeno-
`
`Alvarez. Coe admitted his liability, but disputed the amount of damages.
`
`Prior to trial, Centeno-Alvarez presented Coe with an offer of
`
`judgment in the sum of $1,250,000 pursuant to NRCP 68 and NRS 17.115.
`
`Coe did not accept the offer and it lapsed. Following a jury trial, Centeno-
`
`Alvarez was awarded $36,465 in past damages along with prejudgment
`
`and post-judgment interest. However, the district court granted Centeno-
`
`Alvarez's motion for a new trial. Coe appealed and this court affirmed,
`
`concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in ordering a
`
`new trial.
`
`SUPREME COURT
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 1947A
`
`3 - 2 ) 11 $
`
`
`
`A second trial resulted in a verdict totaling $1,594,229 plus
`
`prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Coe filed a motion to alter or
`
`amend the judgment, arguing that the district court had miscalculated
`
`prejudgment interest. The district court denied both motions. Centeno-
`
`Alvarez moved for an award of attorney fees, based upon the offer of
`
`judgment that Coe rejected. The district court granted the motion, but
`
`reduced the amount of attorney fees from the $1,440,102 requested to
`
`$210,000. Coe now presents this appeal.
`
`At issue is whether the district court abused its discretion by
`
`awarding Centeno-Alvarez attorney fees and whether the district court
`
`erred by awarding prejudgment interest on appellant's award of future
`
`damages.' This court reviews a district court's decisions regarding
`
`attorney fees and prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion. MC.
`
`Multi-Family Dev. v. Crestdale Assocs., 124 Nev. 901, 916, 193 P.3d 536,
`
`546 (2008).
`
`The district court erred in its award of attorney fees
`
`Coe argues that all of the factors that a district court must
`
`apply in awarding attorney fees under Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668
`
`P.2d 268 (1983), weigh against an award of attorney fees and the award
`
`should be reversed.
`
`"Coe also asserts that Centeno-Alvarez's counsel committed
`prejudicial misconduct warranting either a new trial or reversal on appeal
`by making inflammatory and disparaging remarks against respondent and
`his counsel, making Golden Rule arguments, expressing personal opinion,
`and engaging in jury nullification. We have found each of these claims to
`be without merit.
`
`SUPREME COURT
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 1947A
`
`2
`
`
`
`This court can only overturn an order of attorney fees if the
`
`district court's exercise of discretion in evaluating the Beattie factors is
`
`arbitrary or capricious. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire v. Mercer, 111 Nev. 318,
`
`324, 890 P.2d 785, 789 (1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as
`
`stated in RTTC Commn'ns, LLC v. Saratoga Flier, Inc., 121 Nev. 34, 41-
`
`42, 110 P.3d 24, 29 (2005). In exercising its discretion in awarding
`
`attorney fees and costs, a district court must evaluate "(1) whether the
`
`plaintiffs claim was brought in good faith; (2) whether the defendants'
`
`offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and
`
`amount; (3) whether the plaintiffs decision to reject the offer and proceed
`
`to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and (4) whether the fees
`
`sought by the offeror are reasonable and justified in amount." Beattie, 99
`
`Nev. at 588-89, 668 P.2d at 274. However, in Yamaha Motor Co. v.
`
`Arnault, this court concluded that a district court must consider Beattie
`
`factors in a different way when the plaintiff, rather than the defendant,
`
`has given the offer of judgment. 114 Nev. 233, 252, 955 P.2d 661, 673
`
`(1998). In such cases, instead of determining whether the plaintiffs claim
`
`was brought in good faith, the district court should evaluate whether the
`
`defendant's defenses were litigated in good faith.
`
`Id. The Yamaha court
`
`also held that no single Beattie factor is determinative and that the
`
`district court has broad discretion in awarding attorney fees so long as all
`
`factors are considered in a non-arbitrary manner.
`
`Id. at 251 n.16, 955
`
`P.2d at 672 n.16.
`
`Here, the Beattie analysis was improperly conducted contrary
`
`to Yamaha because the district court evaluated whether the plaintiffs
`
`claims were brought in good faith, not whether the defendant defended in
`
`good faith. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in its
`
`SUPREME COURT
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 1947A
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`consideration of the first Beattie factor. However, because no single factor
`
`is determinative, this court must also look to the district court's
`
`consideration of the other factors.
`
`In considering the second factor, the court found that the
`
`plaintiffs offer of judgment was in good faith and was reasonable in
`
`timing and amount because he already had accumulated $220,000 in
`
`medical bills and his doctors correlated his injuries with the accident.
`
`This portion of the analysis does not appear arbitrary.
`
`As to the third Beattie factor, however, the district court
`
`stated in its order that the "defendant's rejection of the offer of judgment
`
`was grossly unreasonable" based upon the fact that "plaintiffs medical
`
`bills were over $220,000.00 at the time the offer of judgment was served,"
`
`that his medical records indicated that he required further extensive
`
`medical treatment, and that "defendant had stipulated to liability."
`
`However, at a hearing on December 15, 2010, the district court stated that
`
`defendant's rejection of the offer "was a completely reasonable position to
`
`take by any stretch." Based on the statement of the district court and the
`
`fact that the offer of judgment was more than six times the amount of
`
`plaintiffs medical bills at the time of the offer, we conclude that the
`
`district court's contradictory determination that defendant's rejection was
`
`grossly unreasonable was an abuse of discretion.
`
`Regarding the fourth Beattie factor, the reasonableness of the
`
`attorney fees, the district court considered each of the Brunzell factors and
`
`awarded an attorney fee equivalent to $100 per each attorney hour. See
`
`Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 349, 455 P.2d 31, 33
`
`(1969). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
`
`analyzing the fourth Beattie factor.
`
`SUPREME COURT
`
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 1947A
`
`4
`
`3*ZWSIEWZZItalklUINini-tMdE
`
`
`
`Considering all four Beattie factors together, the district court
`
`abused its discretion in its consideration of two of the factors. Accordingly,
`
`we vacate the award of attorney fees and remand this matter to the
`
`district court for reconsideration of the Beattie factors in accordance with
`
`this order.
`
`The district court did not err in awarding prejudgment interest
`
`Coe argues that the district court's decision to award
`
`prejudgment interest on the award of future damages was an abuse of
`
`discretion. NRS 17.115 allows the court to give the prevailing party
`
`interest on the judgment from the time of the offer to the time of entry of
`
`the judgment. NRS 17.115(4)(d)(2). In Uniroyal, this court clarified that
`
`NRS 17.115 does not distinguish between past and future damages in the
`
`judgment, so any interest awarded on the judgment applies to all of the
`
`judgment, including both past and future damages awarded. 111 Nev. at
`
`324, 890 P.2d at 789-90. Further, this court in Uniroyal stated that the
`
`purpose of awarding prejudgment interest on future damages is to
`
`"provide[ ] a financial incentive for early settlement of litigation," and
`
`therefore the type of damages are immaterial to the purpose of the statute.
`
`Id. Here, the district court's award of prejudgment future damages falls
`
`within the scope of NRS 17.115 as contemplated in Uniroyal. Therefore,
`
`the district court did not err by awarding prejudgment interest on both
`
`past and future damages. Based on the foregoing, we
`
`SUPREME COURT
`OF
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 1947A 74**
`
`5
`
`
`
`ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
`
`PART AND VACATED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the
`
`district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
`
`Gibbons
`
`Saitta
`
`J.
`
`cc: The Honorable James M. Bixler, District Judge
`Leonard I. Gang, Settlement Judge
`Ranalli & Zaniel, LLC/Henderson
`Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
`Ganz & Hauf
`Vannah & Vannah
`Eighth District Court Clerk
`
`SUPREME COURT
`
`OF
`
`NEVADA
`
`(0) 1947A (cid:9)
`
`•
`
`6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
