Opinion
No. 61676
03-23-2015
JUDY SORCI, Appellant, v. VENETIAN CASINO RESORT, LLC, A NEVADA DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABLITY COMPANY D/B/A THE VENETIAN RESORT HOTEL CASINO, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court judgment on a jury verdict in a torts action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nancy L. Allf, Judge.
This case arises from appellant Judy Sorci's detention by respondent, the Venetian Casino Resort, LLC, over concerns that two worn $100 bills that she attempted to exchange at the casino cage were counterfeit. Thereafter. Sorci sued the Venetian alleging causes of action for assault; battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; negligent operation, hiring, retention and supervision; defamation; false imprisonment; unreasonable use of force; and invasion of privacy/unreasonable intrusion. After the district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, the case proceeded to a jury trial. During the trial, the court granted a partial directed verdict in favor of the Venetian, which left only Sorci's assault, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and negligence claims for the jury's consideration. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in the Venetian's favor and this appeal followed.
The bills in question were ultimately sent to the Secret Service, which confirmed that the bills were not counterfeit.
Within this cause of action, Sorci also asserted that the Venetian's actions were willful, fraudulent, and malicious and thus requested punitive damages.
--------
On appeal, Sorci presents a number of arguments in which she simply asserts that certain of the district court's decisions were incorrect without providing any explanation as to why she believes these rulings were erroneous. For example, Sorci contends that the district court erred in denying her summary judgment on her defamation and false imprisonment claims, but fails to explain why she believes that the denial of this motion was in error or to advise us of what evidence or legal arguments would entitle her to judgment as a matter of law. Similarly, Sorci alleges that the district court gave improper jury instructions, allowed improper arguments to be made and allowed evidence of "irrelevant statutes" to be admitted, but provides no indication as to which jury instructions, arguments, or statutory evidence she is challenging or how the district court abused its discretion as to these issues. Sorci's arguments regarding the district court's partial grant of a directed verdict and her challenge to the jury's verdict in favor of the Venetian also lack any specific contentions as to why those verdicts were incorrect. Thus, because Sorci has failed to present any cogent arguments or explanation regarding why she contends that the rulings detailed above were incorrect, we decline to consider her challenges to these rulings in resolving her appeal. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (providing that an appellate court need not consider assertions that are not cogently argued).
Turning to Sorci's remaining appellate arguments—that the district court improperly restricted her voir dire of the jury panel, improperly admitted previously undisclosed evidence, failed to instruct the jury to disregard a witness's testimony for alleged perjury, and improperly required the trial to end by a certain date—these determinations all occurred during the trial of the case. Sorci, however, has failed to provide an adequate record for this court's review on these issues, as no transcript of the underlying trial has been provided. Notably, while Sorci filed a transcript request form certifying that she had ordered and paid for the trial transcript, no transcripts were ever filed and Sorci never requested that the court reporter be compelled to prepare the transcripts or otherwise followed up on her initial request to ensure that the requested transcripts were provided for our review in resolving this appeal. Where, as here, a party fails to ensure that the appellate court is provided with the documents necessary for the court's review on appeal, we necessarily presume that the missing documentation supports the district court's decisions. See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 604, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007). As a result, we necessarily
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
William C. Turner, Settlement Judge
Judy Sorci
Messner Reeves LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk