Opinion
No. 60482
12-18-2013
DR. WADE WAGNER, Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, A LOCAL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY; COUNCILWOMAN ANITA WOOD, ACTING IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; COUNCILMAN ROBERT L. ELIASON, ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; COUNCILMAN WILLIAM ROBINSON, ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY; AND RICHARD CHERCHIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CANDIDATE FOR CITY COUNCILMAN, Respondents.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is an appeal from a district court's order denying attorney fees. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County.
Appellant Wade Wagner won the 2011 North Las Vegas City Council Member general election for Ward Four. After discovering that a vote was improperly cast, the North Las Vegas City Council decided to hold a new election. In response, Wagner filed a complaint challenging the City's decision. The district court issued a writ of prohibition precluding the City from holding a new election, and issued a writ of mandamus ordering the City to declare Wagner the election's winner. Subsequently, Wagner moved for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Nevada's substantial benefit doctrine. The district court determined that Wagner failed to present a substantial federal claim to warrant attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and that the substantial benefit doctrine was inapplicable. Thus, the court denied Wagner's motion. This appeal followed.
Standard of review
We review this matter de novo because it implicates a question of law. See Thomas v. N. Las Vegas, 122 Nev. 82, 90, 127 P.3d 1057, 1063 (2006).
42 U.S.C. § 1988
Wagner was not entitled to attorney fees under the federal statute because he did not present a federal claim for the court's review. See Robinson v. Omaha, 495 N.W.2d 281, 284 (Neb. 1993) (detailing that a plaintiff must present a substantial federal claim to receive attorney fees under the federal statute).
Substantial benefit doctrine
Generally, the substantial benefit doctrine is inapplicable in actions against municipalities because all citizen taxpayers in a municipality "usually cannot share the [conferred benefit], and therefore, the costs cannot be shifted with some exactitude to those benefitting." Thomas 122 Nev. at 92, 127 P.3d at 1064. However, this court has recognized an exception to the general rule when a successful party represents all citizen taxpayers in the litigation, and the litigation benefits all of the taxpayers. See id. at 92-93, 127 P.3d at 1064-65.
The substantial benefit doctrine is applicable because Wagner's success benefitted all of North Las Vegas's taxpayers. Wagner's action precluded the City from conducting an improper revote; thus, it saved the taxpayers the expense of another general election. Saving the North Las Vegas taxpayers money is undoubtedly a benefit and renders the substantial benefit doctrine applicable to this matter.
"To recover fees under the substantial benefit doctrine, a successful party must demonstrate" three things: (1) the beneficiary class is "'small in number and easily identifiable;' (2) 'the benefit [can] be traced with some accuracy;' and (3) 'the costs [can] . . . be shifted with some exactitude to those benefiting.'" Id. at 91, 127 P.3d at 1063-64 (quoting Kinney v. Int'l Bhd of Elec. Workers, 939 F.2d 690, 692 n.1 (9th Cir. 1991)).
The district court failed to apply the Thomas factors when it denied Wagner's motion; thus, a remand is necessary. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
_________________, J.
Gibbons
_________________, J.
Douglas
_________________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Pisanelli Bice, PLLC
Griffin Rowe & Nave
Eighth District Court Clerk