Opinion
No. 69903
03-06-2017
KYLE KRCH, Appellant, v. JOSEPH DECKER, ADMINISTRATOR; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY, REAL ESTATE DIVISION, Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, Judge.
Kyle Krch filed a petition for judicial review challenging a Decision against him by the Nevada Real Estate Commission (Commission), which arose from a proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, Krch omitted the Commission from the caption and failed to serve the petition upon it, instead naming only Joseph Decker and the Nevada Real Estate Division (Division) as a respondent. The Division moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under NRS 233B.130(2)(a), which the district court granted.
We do not recount the facts except as necessary to our disposition.
Krch appeals the dismissal to this court, arguing that Washoe County v. Otto, 128 Nev. ___, ___, 282 P.3d 719, 725 (2012) is either distinguishable or should be overturned in light of various other sources of Nevada law. First, we decline to adopt Krch's invitation to overturn Otto. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; see also NRAP 36(c) (a published opinion creates mandatory precedent). Thus, we turn to Krch's argument that Otto is distinguishable. We review a district court's interpretation of caselaw de novo. Liu v. Christopher Homes, LLC, 130 Nev. ___, ___, 321 P.3d 875, 877 (2014).
Accordingly, we need not reach Krch's related arguments regarding whether the supreme court's holding in Washoe County v. Otto, 128 Nev. ___, ___, 282 P.3d 719, 725 (2012) was inconsistent with other aspects of Nevada law. --------
Below, the district court declined to distinguish this case from Otto, determining "Otto did not find a description of the missing parties within the body of the petition would have rendered the petition compliant." We agree. Otto is clear that the procedural requirements of the APA are jurisdictional and must be strictly followed, and Krch did not strictly follow them. See Otto, 128 Nev. at ___, 282 P.3d at 725 ("Nothing in the language of [NRS 233B.130(2)] suggests that its requirements are anything but mandatory and jurisdictional."). Further, the plain language of the statute specifically requires that petitions for judicial review must "name as respondents the agency and all parties of record to the administrative proceeding." NRS 233B.130(2)(a) (emphasis added). Krch admits in his opening brief that "The Petition did not name the Commission as a respondent in the caption." Therefore, both Otto and the plain language of the statute compel affirmance.
Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
Robert L. Eisenberg, Settlement Judge
Holland & Hart LLP/Reno
Attorney General/Carson City
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Washoe District Court Clerk