Before the Court En Banc. Opinion by Justice Douglas.
In this writ petition, the Court clarified the rule announced in D.R. Horton v. District Court (First Light II), 125 Nev. 449, 215 P.3d 697 (2009), by which homeowners’ associations can sue on behalf of their members if they meet the Rule 23 class action requirements. Beazer Homes Holding Corp. (the Developer) challenged the district court’s decision to permit real-party-in-interest View of Black Mountain Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (the HOA) to maintain a construction defect class action lawsuit on behalf of its members. The district court determined that the case was factually distinguishable from First Light II (which involved interior, rather than exterior, defects), and the HOA was not required to meet the class action requirements of NRCP 23 because it was expressly permitted to litigate on behalf of its members pursuant to NRS 116.3102(1)(d). In its writ petition, the Developer argued that First Light II required the district court to analyze Rule 23 and, based on that analysis, the HOA could not proceed in a representative capacity. The Court first restated a portion of its holding in First Light II that, pursuant to NRS 116.3102(1), a homeowners’ association has standing to sue on behalf of its members, regardless of whether it meets the NRCP 23 class action requirements, and regardless of whether it is seeking to recover damages for common areas which it is responsible for maintaining. In addition, the Court reiterated that an association is required to satisfy the Rule 23 class action requirements in order to pursue individual construction defect claims of multiple owners. However, the Court clarified that, despite suggestions in First Light II to the contrary, a homeowners’ association’s failure to strictly satisfy those requirements does not automatically result in a failure of the representative action. Rather, district courts are required to conduct a Rule 23 analysis when a homeowners’ association requests certification of a class action, as such an analysis will assist the district court in determining how the action should proceed (i.e., as a class action, a joinder action, consolidated actions, or in some other fashion), and how notice, discovery, evidentiary, and claim preclusion issues should be resolved. The Court held that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously because it failed to conduct such an analysis. Accordingly, the Court granted the Developer’s writ petition in part, and directed the clerk to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to conduct a Rule 23 analysis. (Patrick J. Murch, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP).
