A recent decision by the Nevada Supreme Court in Vegas Aqua, LLC, a/k/a Lake Las Vegas Water Sports v. Jupitor Corp. clarified the scope of authority for short trial judges. Nevada’s Short Trial Program was implemented in June 2002 to resolve disputes outside the traditional trial avenue and Court Annexed Arbitration Program. The Short Trial Program allows cases to be tried on a fast-track basis, in eight (8) months or less, and recovery is limited to $100,000 per plaintiff, unless the parties otherwise agree.
Under the Nevada Short Trial Rule (“NSTR”) 3(d), short trial judges have all the powers of a district court judge, except regarding the final judgment. The short trial judge is a judge pro tempore selected from a qualified panel. The judgment issued by a short trial judge is a proposed judgement that must then be approved or rejected by a district court judge. If approved, the proposed judgment becomes a final judgment.
The issue in Vegas Aqua centered on whether a short trial judge could rule on objections to the proposed judgment and a subsequent motion to alter the judgment or for a new trial. The parties in the case had a dispute regarding payment for a yacht rental. A mandatory arbitration resulted in an award for Jupitor, and Vegas Aqua requested a trial de novo. The case was directed to the Short Trial Program, and a short trial judge rendered her proposed award in favor of Jupitor.
Vegas Aqua filed an objection to that proposed award, which the short trial judge denied after seeking guidance as to her authority to do so from the Alternative Dispute Resolution Office (“ADR Office”). The ADR Office advised she could rule on the objection. Vegas Aqua then filed a motion under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure (“NRCP”) 59 to alter the judgment or for a new trial. The short trial judge again consulted the ADR Office who advised her to rule on the motion, which she denied. Vegas Aqua then appealed, arguing the short trial judge exceeded her authority under NSTR 3(d).
The Nevada Supreme Court agreed, holding that the plain language of rule unambiguously provides that a district court is to review and rule on any objections to a proposed judgment. NSTR 3(d) expressly states that the district court should review the proposed judgment and any objection to that judgment prior to approving or rejecting the judgment. With respect to the NRCP 59 motion, the Court determined there was more than one reasonable interpretation of NSTR 3(d) and turned to reason and public policy to determine the rule’s intent.
The Court ultimately decided that a NRCP 59 motion falls under the district court’s authority over final judgments as the motions challenge the final judgment approved by the district court. The short trial judge therefore exceeded her authority when she ruled on Vegas Aqua’s motion. Another major factor in the Court’s decision was that the short trial judge had amended her findings of fact and conclusions of law in response to the arguments raised in the NRCP 59 motion and after the district court had already approved the proposed judgment. There was no indication that the amended findings were approved by the district court, which undermined the finality of the judgment and created challenges for appellate review.
The Court also noted that public policy supports the district court ruling on NRCP 59 motions. The Short Trial Program is intended to expedite civil trials, but the program also stresses the importance of the district court’s oversight and review. The district court deciding NRCP 59 motions ensures the final judgment is protected and that a meaningful review is conducted.
Nevada’s Short Trial Program provides litigants with an alternative to the traditional trial timeline through a more limited presentation of witnesses and evidence. While the Short Trial Program operates with its own set of rules and procedures, the Nevada Supreme Court has reaffirmed the important role the district court plays in reviewing and approving the rulings and judgments produced.
