Preview:

These consolidated appeals raise issues arising from litigation concerning a construction project at a condominium owned by appellant Upper Deck Company. After a dispute arose among the project's main participants, Upper Deck and respondents Herbert Gordon Press (HGP) (design professional), Matt Construction LLC (gen eral contractor), and Arco Electric of Nevada (subcontractor), Matt Construction and Arco Electric filed mechanic's lien actions against Upper Deck and HGP, and Upper Deck and HGP filed various counterclaims, cross-claims, and thirdparty claims concerning the project. The actions were consolidated, and ultimately, the district court entered judgments against Upper Deck in favor of respondents based on its determination as a matter of law that HGP acted as Upper Deck's agent and on the jury's findings that Upper Deck failed to pay respondents moneys due for their work on the project. Attorney fees were also awarded, and Upper Deck appealed. At issue is: (1) whether the district court improperly entered judgment as a matter of law against Upper Deck on the agency issue, (2) whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing HGP to amend its pleadings under NRCP 15(b), (3) whether the district court improperly rejected Upper Deck's proposed amendments to the special verdict form, and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs.'

Deck's arguments pertain primarily to issues concerning HGP; it appears the Matt Construction was named as a respondent to the extent that any reversal on the agency question would necessarily alter the judgment as to it.

1-Upper

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A

The parties are familiar with the facts, and we do not further recount them except as pertinent to our disposition. The district court did not err in entering judgment as a matter of law against Upper Deck on the issue of whether HGP acted as Upper Deck's agent Upper Deck argues that the district court erred by granting HGP judgment as a matter of law on the issue of agency. It asserts that it presented substantial evidence that the contractual relationship with HGP did not give rise to an agency relationship; rather, it asserts, HGP was acting as an "independent design consultant." Upper Deck urges reversal because evidence was presented sufficient to support the jury finding that it never held HGP out as its agent and that Matt Construction did not believe that HGP was Upper Deck's agent. Upper Deck maintains that, when the evidence that was presented at trial is viewed in the light most favorable to Upper Deck, a reasonable jury would not have been able to conclude that an agency relationship existed. This court reviews de novo a district court's decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Winchell v. Schiff, 124 Nev. 938, 947, 193 P.3d 946, 952 (2008). In ruling on such a motion, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. A district court may grant a motion for a judgment as a matter of law "[i]f during a trial by jury, a party has been fully heard on an issue and on the facts and law a party has failed to prove a sufficient issue for the jury." NRCP 50(a)(1). Such a ruling is proper only "if there is no question of fact remaining," Gordon v. Hurtado, 91 Nev. 641, 646, 541 P.2d 533, 536 (1975), and "any verdict other than the one directed, would be erroneous as a matter of law." Bliss v. DePrang, 81 Nev. 599, 601, 407 P.2d 726, 727 (1965).
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3

(0) 1947A

"An agency relationship is formed when one who hires another retains a contractual right to control the other's manner of performance." Grand Hotel Gift Shop v. Granite St. Ins., 108 Nev. 811, 815, 839 P.2d 599, 602 (1992). Typically, an architect is considered the owner's agent in supervising construction. See Berkel and Co. Contractors, Inc. v. Providence Hospital, 454 So. 2d 496, 501 n.3 (Ala. 1984); Trane Co. v. Gilbert, 73 Cal. Rptr. 279, 283 (1968); 5 Am. Jur. 2d Architects

Download 55246.pdf

Nevada Law