Before Saitta, Hardesty and Parraguirre. Opinion by Saitta.
In this petition for a writ of mandamus from the denial of a motion for summary judgment, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified the procedure for claiming damages after obtaining a summary eviction. After obtaining a summary eviction in justice court pursuant to NRS 40.253, a landlord brought a damages claim against the tenant in district court. The tenant moved for summary judgment arguing that claim preclusion prevented the second action for damages. Reaffirming the test for claim preclusion announced in Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048 (2008), the Court determined that claim preclusion would usually apply because the parties were identical, the justice court’s judgment on summary eviction was final and valid, and the claim for damages, which arose from the same breach as the claim for eviction, could have been brought in justice court up to the jurisdictional limit. Interpreting NRS 40.253 as it existed before recent amendments, however, the Court determined landlords must be allowed to avail themselves of the swift and straightforward summary eviction procedure and then seek damages in a later proceeding because to require damages claims to be brought at the same time as claims for eviction would needlessly complicate the summary proceedings and defeat their entire purpose. As such, the Court concluded that an exception to the doctrine of claim preclusion exists for summary eviction proceedings under NRS 40.253, allowing landlords seeking summary eviction and damages to bring the claim in a single action or separate actions at their election. Petition denied. (By Amanda Hogeg, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson)
