Opinion
No. 62769
2013-10-01
PAUL CHRISTOPHER, IN PROPER PERSON; AND PALMER CHRISTOPHER, IN PROPER PERSON, Appellants, v. PEEL & BRIMLEY, LLP, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP; RICHARD L. PEEL; JON M. LUDWIG; AND MICHAEL J. DAVIDSON, Respondents.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 proper person appeal from a district court order dismissing appellants' complaint in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge.
Respondents are the law firm of Peel & Brimley, LLP and attorneys who are current or former partners or employees of that firm. Appellants Paul and Palmer Christopher sued respondents for deceptive trade practices, negligence per se, and nuisance for prosecuting against them a mechanics' lien asserted by Peel & Brimley's client, Ditch Diggers, LLC. The mechanics' lien was the subject of litigation in Christopher v. Byrd Underground, LLC, Docket No. 57322, wherein this court affirmed the validity of the mechanics' lien.
In this case, appellants' causes of action fail to state a claim. In re Amerco Derivative Litig., 127 Nev. __, __, 252 P.3d 681, 692 (2011) (holding that a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo, and to survive dismissal, a complaint must state some set of facts entitling the plaintiff to relief). Appellants' deceptive trade practices claims fail because prosecuting a mechanics' lien is not a deceptive trade practice, nor does litigation create a consumer or business relationship with the opposing attorney. See NRS 598.0903 et seq. Appellants' negligence per se claims fail because an attorney does not have a duty stemming from his client's violation of contractor disciplinary statutes. See NRS 624.301 et seq. Likewise, appellants' nuisance claims fail because an attorney prosecuting a valid mechanics' lien is not a nuisance. See Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 129 Nev. ___, ___, 294 P.3d 427, 432 (2013). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
We have considered appellants' other arguments on appeal and conclude that they lack merit. Respondents' motion to dismiss this appeal is denied.
___________, J.
Gibbons
___________, J.
Douglas
___________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Palmer Christopher
Paul Christopher
Gordon & Rees, LLP
Peel Brimley LLP/Henderson
Eighth District Court Clerk