FILED

Electronically
CV22-00406
2023-01-09 10:53:04 AM
Alicia L. Lerud
1 Clerk of the Court
CODE: 3370 Transaction # 9445489
2

4 IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

5 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE
6

7
SCENIC NEVADA, INC., Case No.: CV22-00406
8

9 Petitioner/Plaintiffs, Dept. No.: 9

10 vs.
11
CITY OF RENO, a political subdivision of the
12 State of Nevada, and the CITY COUNCIL
thereof; RENO REAL ESTATE
13 DEVELOPMENT, LLC; RENO PROPERTY
MANAGER, LLC,
14

15 Respondents/Defendants.
16

17 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

The Court is in receipt of Respondents REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, LLC and RENO
18
PROPERTY MANAGER, LLC’s (hereafter "Respondents") Motion to Dismiss filed September 8,
19
2022; Respondent THE CITY OF RENO’s (hereafter “City”) Respondent’s Joinder to Real Parties
20
In Interests’ Motion to Dismiss filed September 14, 2022; Plaintiff SCENIC NEVADA, INC’s
21
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed Octover 6, 2022; and Respondents’ Reply To Scenic Nevada
22
LLC’s Opposition Motion to Dismiss filed October 20, 2022.
23 Upon review of the record, pleadings, and oral arguments proffered, this Court finds good
24 cause appears to GRANT Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, as this Court lacks subject matter
25 jurisdiction over this matter due to the Petitioner having failed to meet the statutory requirements to
26 bring a petition for judicial review.

27 Procedural History

28
This case arises due to a Petition for Judicial review of the City Council’s October 27, 2022,
approval of Ordinance No. 6610. Ordinance No. 6610 approved the Development Agreement for a

-1-
 1 revitalization of a portion of Reno to be known as the Neon Line District (the “District”). The
2 District was proposed to be a dynamic, mixed-use entertainment district located within an area
3 generally bounded by Keystone Street to the west, I-80 to the north, West Street to the east, and

4 West Second Street to the south. See Petition, Ex. 1 at 4. The Development Agreement secured

5
financial incentives and regulatory adjustments for the Respondents on their properties within the
District and associated construction of the projects therein. Id. Items contemplated by the
6
Development Agreement include the installation of streetlights and compliance with streetlight
7
standards, existing and proposed pedestrian amenities, sewer connection fees and credits, pedestrian
8
walkway and streetscape modifications, fee deferrals for residential permit building permit
9
application, provisions regarding the residential construction tax, and various other considerations.
10
See id. 5-10.
11 The Development Agreement also includes that the Respondents intend to propose three
12 area identification signs to identify the area at some juncture in the future. Id. at 7. Although the
13 Development Agreement contemplates that area identification signs may eventually be proposed in
14 specific locations, it also indicates that the Developers will still be required to file sign permit

15
applications for each sign, and ensure whatever signs are eventually proposed will comply with all
standards then in place. Id. at 7-8.
16
The Development Agreement was initially presented for approval at the hearing before the
17
City Council on October 13, 2021. Petition, ¶ 14. Petitioner submitted a letter to the Reno City
18
Council on October 11, 2021, objecting to the signs based on the narrative description within the
19
proposed Development Agreement, noting that the Development Agreement was not ready for
20
approval given that all the exhibits were not made available to the public. Id., ¶ 15; see also Petition
21 Ex. 5. On October 13th, the City of Reno adopted Ordinance 6610 approving the Development
22 Agreement.
23 Ordinance 6610 came on for hearing by the City Council for a second reading on October
24 27, 2021. Id., ¶ 17. Prior to the hearing, Petitioner submitted a second letter outlining further

25
objections to the proposed ordinance. Id. Specifically, Petitioner objected to Section 3.02(e) of the
Development Agreement, which briefly addresses the area identification signs that may be proposed
26
at some time in the future. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council voted to approve the
27
Development Agreement by adopting Ordinance 6610.
28

-2-
 1 On November 19, 2021, Petitioner filed its First Petition against the City of Reno in
2 Department 4 of the Second judicial District Court in Case No. CV21-02086. On December 20,
3 2021, the City filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Petition, arguing that the SNI did not have

4 standing to bring the First Petition and that SNI had failed to name the Developers as required and

5
necessary parties to the proceedings. In response, on January 9, 2022, Petitioner filed an Amended
“Petition for Judicial Review, or alternatively, for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition, or
6
alternatively, Complaint for Declaratory Relief” (hereafter “Amended Petition”). The Amended
7
Petition added the Developers to the lawsuit, asserting a claim for declaratory relief against the
8
Developers and attempting to cure SNI’s lack of standing to bring the petition.
9
On January 11, 2022, the City of Reno filed a Motion to Sever Petitioner’s Petition for
10
Judicial Review from the related civil actions brought in the First Petition. On February 2, 2022,
11 Respondents filed their Motion to Dismiss in Case No. CV21-02086 (“Second Motion to Dismiss”).
12 That motion sought to dismiss the case in its entirety. On March 10, 2022, the Court granted the
13 City’s Motion to Sever. Petitioner then filed the instant Petition in this Court.
14 STANDARD OF REVIEW

15
When considering a Motion to Dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(5), “Dismissal of a complaint is
appropriate “only if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which,
16
if true, would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief.” Wilson v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 137 Nev.
17
Adv. Op. 70, 498 P.3d 1278, 1280 (2021) (citing Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev.
18
224, 228 (2008)). The Court must assume the complaint’s factual allegations are true and draw all
19
inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. 224 at 228.
20
In Nevada, a pleading need only contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
21 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” NRCP 8(a). Specifically, the Nevada Supreme Court has
22 explained that a complaint “need only set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate the necessary
23 elements of a claim for relief so that the defending party has adequate notice of the nature of the
24 claim and relief sought.” Western States Const., Inc. v. Michoff, 108 Nev. 931, 936 (1993).

25
However, “the district court may properly dismiss a complaint when a lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint.” Craig v. Donnelly, 135 Nev. 37, 39 (Nev.
26
App. 2019); see also NRCP 12(b)(1) (emphasis added).
27

28

-3-
 1 DISCUSSION
2 Upon review of the evidence presented to the Court, the Court finds good cause to GRANT
3 the Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, as the Court concludes Petitioner does not have standing to

4 bring forth this a petition.

5
Petitioner attempts to bring a claim for Judicial review under NRS 278.3195. NRS
278.3195(4) provides that standing for such a petition is :
6
Any person who:
7

8
(a) Has appealed a decision to the governing body in accordance with an ordinance
adopted pursuant to subsection 1; and
9
(b) Is aggrieved by the decision of the governing body,
10

11 may appeal that decision to the district court of the proper county by filing a petition
for judicial review within 25 days after the date of filing of notice of the decision with
12 the clerk or secretary of the governing body, as set forth in NRS 278.0235.
13
"Generally, courts have no inherent appellate jurisdiction over official acts of administrative
14 agencies except where the legislature has made some statutory provision for judicial review. Thus,
15 when the legislature creates a specific procedure for review of administrative agency decisions,
16 such procedure is controlling." Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, 128 Nev. 424, 431 (2012) (internal quotations
17 marks and corrections omitted) (emphasis added). The Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed such

18
rational, holding that “NRS 278.3195(4) is clear and unambiguous,” and therefore due to the
statutory interpretation set forth by the Supreme Court, this Courts must enforce the statute’s plain
19
language as written. Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 1104 (2006). This section of NRS 278.0235
20
mandates that to have standing to challenge a governing body’s decision before a district court, the
21
party must be aggrieved by the decision and have filed an appeal from the planning commission to
22
the governing body. Id. Failure to comply with the statutory requirement deprives this Court of
23
jurisdiction to hear a petition for judicial review. K-Kel, Inc. v. Dep’t of Taxation, 134 Nev. 78, 80-
24 81 (2018) (“strict compliance with the statutory requirements for [judicial] review is a precondition
25 to jurisdiction by the court of judicial review”) (quoting Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, 128 Nev. 424, 431
26 (2012)).
27

28

-4-
 1 (a): Petitioner has Failed to Appeal the Underlying Decision to the Appropriate Governing Body
2 As it pertains to the subsection a of NRS 278.3195(4), Petitioner has not appealed the
3 underlying decision to the required governing body. Within its Opposition, Petitioner admits that

4 that it did not, and could not, appeal the underlying decision to the City Council since the

5
Development Agreement was first heard by the City Council and not the Planning Commission.
Opp. at 14:22-28. Petitioner admits that it recognizes the statutory requirements citing a Supreme
6
Court decision which held that “[u]nder NRS 278.3195’s new procedure, a right of review has been
7
created in the district court--and that right only comes into existence after the governing board’s
8
decision has been properly challenged through, and reviewed by, the governing board's internal
9
appellate procedure.” Mesagate Homeowners' Ass'n v. City of Fernley, 124 Nev. 1092, 1100-01
10
(2008).
11 Due to the plain language set forth in NRS 278.3195(4)(a), the Petitioner has not appealed
12 the underlying decision to the required governing body. This Court is bound by the plain language
13 of the statute and its clear meaning. As such, this Court finds that Petitioners failure to adhere to the
14 statutory conditions deprive this Court of jurisdiction, thus making dismissal proper.

15
(b): Petitioner Fails to Show How it is an Aggrieved Party
Both Parties agree that the applicable definition of “aggrieved” is found in Reno Municipal
16
Code (hereafter “RMC”). City of N. Las Vegas v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 1197, 1206 (2006) (as “the
17
Legislature chose not to define ‘aggrieved’ for appeals in counties with populations of less than
18
[700,000],” the pertinent local ordinance controls). RMC provides that an “aggrieved person” is one
19
“whose personal right or right of property is adversely and substantially affected by the action of a
20
discretionary body.” RMC § 18.09 Art. 4. (emphasis added).
21 As such, Petitioner must adequately describe how its property rights are “adversely and
22 substantially affected” by the City Council decision to establish standing to obtain judicial review.
23 Petitioner does not allege that it owns any property subject to, or affected by, the Development
24 Agreement, or that it was a party to the agreement in any way. Moreover, Petitioner does not

25
attempt to specify any personal right that is adversely and substantially affected. Instead, in an
attempt to establish such rights, Petitioner cites a long string of cases in which Petitioner challenged
26
sign permits that had been issued, or policy decisions related to billboards. The Petitioner also
27
attempts to argue that a 2015 memo by the Reno City Attorney confers standing to this current
28
Petition. This Court finds such arguments unpersuasive.

-5-
 1 Standing in district court cannot be conferred by the City Council or any party. Garmong v.
2 Lyon Cty. Bd. of Commissioners, 439 P.3d 962 (Nev. 2019) (“parties may not . . . stipulate to a
3 question of subject matter jurisdiction”); Vaile v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 262, 275

4 (2002) (“Parties may not confer jurisdiction upon the court by their consent when jurisdiction does

5
not otherwise exist.”)
As such, this Court finds that holdings in prior and unrelated cases do not make Petitioner an
6
aggrieved party in this current matter. Additionally, this Court notes that reliance on a 2015 memo
7
by the Reno City Attorney in a prior case is misplaced as the City of Reno has joined the
8
Respondents’ current Motion to Dismiss. The joinder by the City in this matter emphasizes that
9
according to the City they agree Petitioner does not have standing to bring the instant Petition. For
10
all of these reasons the Court finds that the Petitioner has failed to show that it is an aggrieved party
11 as required by NRS 278.3195(4)(b). As previously stated above, the Petitioner’s failure to adhere to
12 the statutory conditions within NRS 278.3195(4)(b) deprive this Court of jurisdiction, making
13 dismissal proper.
14 CONCLUSION

15
THEREFORE, and good cause appearing, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Respondents’
Motion to Dismiss the current Petition for Judicial Review as the Petitioner has failed to establish
16
standing pursuant to the plain language of NRS 278.3195(4).
17

18
DATED this 9th day of January 2022.
19
________________________________
20 DISTRICT JUDGE
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-6-
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the Second Judicial District Court
3
of the State of Nevada, County of Washoe; that on this 9th day of January, 2023, I deposited in the
4

5
County mailing system for postage and mailing with the United States Postal Service in Reno,

6 Nevada, a true copy of the attached document addressed to:

7 [NONE]
8

9 Further, I certify that on the 9th day of January, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with
10
the Clerk of the Court electronic filing system, which will send notice of electronic filing to the
11
following:
12
CASSIN BROWN, ESQ. for RENO REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC, RENO PROPERTY
13
MANAGER LLC
14 CHANDENI SENDALL, ESQ. for CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RENO
JASMINE MEHTA, ESQ. for CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF RENO
15 DARREN LEMIEUX, ESQ. for RENO REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LLC, RENO
PROPERTY MANAGER LLC
16
MARK WRAY, ESQ. for SCENIC NEVADA, INC.
17

18 _______________________________________
Judicial Assistant
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-7-