 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Barmettler v. Reno Air Inc.4/16/1998
rated that Reno Air intended to induce Barmettler into relying on its Drug and Alcohol Policy. Reaching this argument did not, in and of itself, violate NAR 20 relating to disclosures of arbitration awards. There was no jury to contend with and, as to any problem stemming from the trial Judge's evaluation of those proceedings, the fact that Barmettler sought trial de novo alerted the Judge as to the identity of the successful party at arbitration. Further, the failure to provide proof at arbitration is relevant on either summary judgment or on motion to strike all or part of a request for trial de novo. Thus, the rule prohibiting unsealing of the award prior to final Disposition was not offended. Accordingly, we conclude that this argument is without merit.
Attorney's fees
In appeal No. 28100, Barmettler argues that Reno Air's attorney fees in the amount of $3,000 are outrageous and excessive because no discovery, hearings, or motions were filed or heard between the filing of the request for trial de novo and the issuance of the second summary judgment order.
Reno Air notes that it incurred attorney's fees totalling approximately $6,835 which reflected preparation fees for its second motion for summary judgment, as well as formal and informal discovery.
A. Standard of Review
Recently, we determined that a district court's award of attorneys' fees will not be overturned absent a manifest abUSe of discretion. Davidsohn v. Steffens, 112 Nev. 136, 911 P.2d 851) (19961 , Likewise, we have explained that the grant of attorneys I fees is within the court's discretionary ambit. University of Nevada v. Tarkanian, 110 Nev. 581, 590, 879 P.2d 1180, 1187 (1994); County of Clark v. Blanchard Constr. Co., 98 Nev. 488, 492, 653 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1982).
2. Nevada Arbitration Rule 20(A)
NAR 20 (A) creates a disincentive to relitigating an arbitration award. In the event of an adverse judgment at the trial de novo proceedings, the party requesting trial de novo risks paying the adverse party's attorneys' fees.
Rule 20(A) provides in pertinent part:
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if the amount of the award in the trial de novo does not either exceed the arbitration award made to the party requesting the trial de novo, or reduce the liability imposed on that party by the arbitration award, the party requesting the trial de novo must pay to the adverse parties all recoverable costs and attorney's fees associated with the prosecution or defense of the trial de novo. Awards of attorney's fees may not exceed the total amount of $3,000 unless the court finds extraordinary circumstances justifying a higher award. (Emphasis added.)
We conclude that the fee award in this case was mandatory. Accordingly, the district court's award of attorney's fees must be affirmed.
Having concluded that each of Barmettler's claims are, without merit, we accordingly affirm the district court's ruling.
Maupin, J.
We concur:
Young, J.
SHEARING, J., Concurring:
I agree that the district court's order granting summary judgment should be affirmed. I address the Dissent position that offering a drug rehabilitation program can change an at-will employment to contractual employment. Neither the language of the employee handbook nor the drug and alcohol policy, separately or together, make such a change. The employee's status is expressly "at-will." Furthermore, the public policy considerations are particularly compelling for not penalizing companies which do institute drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. The law of this state
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nevada DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|