First 100, Llc v. Tgc/Farkas Funding, Llc
83177
| Nev. | Mar 17, 2022Background
- Appellants First 100, LLC and 1st One Filed Hundred Holdings, LLC were found in civil contempt on April 7, 2021; the district court ordered respondent TGC/Farkas Funding, LLC be awarded attorney fees and costs incurred litigating the relevant matters.
- Respondent requested roughly $157,000 in fees and roughly $5,000 in costs; the district court awarded about $147,000 in fees and the full amount of requested costs.
- The district court also held nonparty Jay Bloom personally liable for the fee-and-cost award.
- Appellants appealed, arguing (1) the fee award was unreasonably high and the court failed to adequately apply Brunzell factors, and (2) the district court erred in holding nonparty Bloom personally liable.
- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed most of the fee award, reversed the award only as to certain discrete charges totaling $6,250.50 (relating to unrelated or non-compensable billing entries), remanded for adjustment, and dismissed the appeal regarding Bloom’s personal liability for lack of jurisdiction to review that issue on the present record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion in awarding attorney fees (Brunzell analysis) | Award unreasonably high; district court didn’t adequately articulate Brunzell factor analysis | District court considered Brunzell factors and made reductions (about $10k) for inadvertent unrelated billing | Court: No abuse of discretion for most challenged categories; explicit Brunzell write-up preferable but not required when factors are considered and supported |
| Reasonableness of specific billing items (rate increases, paralegal rate, double-billing, paralegal at hearing, excessive drafting, unrelated documents, NRCP inquiry time) | Many listed entries were unreasonable or unrelated and should be disallowed | Respondent supplied a declaration supporting counsel’s and paralegal’s rates and time spent; many entries were related and reasonable | Court upheld counsel/paralegal rates and time for categories 1–5; reversed award only as to entries 6–8 found unrelated/non-compensable totaling $6,250.50 |
| Whether nonparty Jay Bloom may be held personally liable (jurisdiction to review) | Bloom (and appellants) argue Bloom, as nonparty, cannot be held personally liable and appellants challenge that liability | Respondent defends district court’s imposition of personal liability on Bloom | Court: Declined to consider the argument on appeal for lack of proper briefing and jurisdiction here; dismissed that portion of the appeal |
| Remedy and remand instructions (calculation and further proceedings) | Appellants sought broader reductions; wanted full reconsideration | Respondent supported district-court award except for adjustments already made | Court reversed only $6,250.50 and remanded for the district court to adjust the award; parties may present any disagreement over that figure on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat'l Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969) (establishes factors courts consider in awarding attorney fees).
- Logan v. Abe, 131 Nev. 260, 350 P.3d 1139 (Nev. 2015) (appellate review looks for abuse of discretion in fee awards; explicit Brunzell analysis preferred but not always required).
- Ozawa v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 125 Nev. 556, 216 P.3d 788 (Nev. 2009) (failure to respond to an argument may be treated as confession of error).
- Mona v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 132 Nev. 719, 380 P.3d 836 (Nev. 2016) (sanctioned party who was not a party below lacks standing to appeal).
- Detwiler v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 486 P.3d 710 (Nev. 2021) (procedural requirements for appellate review of contempt orders; writ review may be required).
- Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 127 Nev. 657, 262 P.3d 705 (Nev. 2011) (court generally declines to consider arguments raised first in a reply brief).