Demartini v. City Of Reno
82331
| Nev. | Mar 3, 2022Background
- Appellant Michael DeMartini petitioned for judicial review of the Reno City Council's decision affirming the planning commission's conditional approval of Heinz Ranch's tentative map for Phase 1A of the StoneGate PUD.
- The district court denied the petition in part, concluding DeMartini lacked standing (i.e., was not an "aggrieved person") under the applicable Reno Municipal Code definition.
- DeMartini claimed the project would adversely affect his property and water rights (including alleged exclusion from a sewer line and a proposed taking of 1,000 acre-feet of water rights) but did not specify his property’s relation to the project or precisely how his rights were impaired.
- DeMartini argued the City Council already found him aggrieved and relied on Kay v. Nunez to contend that finding should control; the City pointed out the municipal aggrievement standard applies and the record lacked factual support.
- The district court found no sufficient showing of an adverse and substantial effect on DeMartini’s personal or property rights, rejected his standing, and therefore did not reach the merits; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the standing ruling and vacated the district court’s unaddressed merits decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/aggrievement under municipal code | DeMartini: he is aggrieved because the Council’s approval will affect his property and water rights | City: DeMartini failed to show his personal or property rights are adversely and substantially affected; municipal definition governs | Court: No standing — appellant did not demonstrate adverse and substantial effect; affirmed district court |
| Whether Council's aggrievement finding binds the court (reliance on Kay) | DeMartini: Council already found him aggrieved, so he must be aggrieved for judicial review | City: Kay does not make the governing body's determination conclusive on the court; court must independently assess aggrievement | Court: Kay does not categorically bind the district court; court may independently determine aggrievement |
| Whether merits can be decided despite lack of standing | DeMartini: implied request to review merits of Council decision | City: Without standing, merits are not reached | Court: Vacated the district court’s merits disposition and did not reach the merits due to lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 252 P.3d 206 (2011) (standing is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 146 P.3d 801 (2006) (addressed aggrievement standard in appeals to governing body and subsequent judicial review)
- City of N. Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 1197, 147 P.3d 1109 (2006) (municipal ordinances may define who may appeal and governing body has discretion but court reviews sufficiency of affidavits/evidence)
- Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 130 P.3d 1280 (2006) (appellant must cogently argue appellate concerns)