Before the Court en banc (Justice Parraguirre recused). Opinion by Justice Saitta.
In this appeal from a business court order granting a permanent injunction, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order enjoining Chateau Vegas and Transat Trade (together “Chateau Vegas”) from importing and selling certain Bordeaux wines and French champagnes in Nevada. Southern Wine entered into certain agreements that established it as the exclusive importer of certain Bordeaux wines and French champagnes in NV. Southern Wine filed the agreements with the Nevada Department of Taxation. In 2002, Southern Wine initiated an action against Chateau Vegas after it learned Chateau Vegas was unlawfully importing and selling French champagnes, and later Bordeaux wines, in Nevada in violation of Southern Wine’s exclusive trade rights pursuant to NRS Chapter 369. Chateau Vegas did not have agreements with the producers of wines and champagne, and the producers’ designated agents, for the importation and sale in Nevada. On appeal, Chateau Vegas argued that Southern Wine failed to strictly comply with the requirements of NRS 369.386 because certain documents were not filed with the Department of Taxation. Chateau Vegas argued that the district court improperly granted injunctive relief because Southern Wine’s exclusive trade rights never vested when it failed to comply with the statute. The Court reviewed the requirements of NRS 369.386 and 369.486 and reiterated that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court gives effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and the Court does not resort to the rules of construction. In finding that Southern Wine, and the related parties to the agreements, complied with the statute’s requirements, the Court noted that NRS 369.386(3) requires a liquor producer acting through an agent to file a “written designation,” and the agent a “written acceptance” of that designation. The Court stated that the statute does not specify a particular filing procedure and noted that, in broad terms, the “written designation” and “written acceptance” must be filed. The Court determined that Southern Wine’s filing of the agreements with the Department of Taxation was sufficient, and declined to read additional requirements into the statutory language. The Court further ruled that injunctive relief was the proper remedy because certain acts by Chateau Vegas (i.e. obtaining the products from other sources and failing to ensure the quality of the products) undermined Southern Wine’s reputation as the primary importer of the liquor in question. The Court affirmed the district court’s finding that Southern Wine established irreparable harm necessary for injunctive relief. Affirmed. (Kristen Gallagher, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson).
