Angel v. Eldorado Casino, Inc.

original complaint." See Consolidated Generator v. Cummins Engine, 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (explaining that an interlocutory order may properly be challenged in the context of an appeal from a final judgment). "A district court order granting an NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss is subject to rigorous appellate review." Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, 125 Nev. 818, 823, 221 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2009). In reviewing the dismissal order, we accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, and dismissal will be deemed improper if the allegations are "legally sufficient to constitute the elements of the claim asserted." Id. Moreover, "we must look at the substance of the claims, not just the labels used in the. . . complaint." Nevada Power Co. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 948, 960, 102 P.3d 578, 586 (2004). Here, the district court dismissed appellant's complaint based on the fact that appellant cited to various statutes pertaining to criminal liability and a constitutional provision safeguarding against unlawful searches and seizures, which applies to state actors. When these citations are disregarded, however, see id., and when the factual allegations in appellant's complaint are accepted as true, the allegations were legally sufficient to constitute the elements of intentional tort claims for either malicious prosecution or false imprisonment 2 and for battery, for which 'Accordingly, we do not address the district court's decision to strike appellant's amended complaint. 2 Tothe extent that respondent was unsure of the cause of action being alleged in Count 1 of appellant's complaint, respondent could have moved for a more definitive statement, see NRCP 12(e), rather than immediately moving for dismissal. By not addressing the issues raised in appellant's proper person appeal statement, respondent failed to provide continued on next page... SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A appellant sought, among other relief, compensation and punitive damages. Sanchez, 125 Nev. at 823, 221 P.3d at 1280. Accordingly, dismissal was improper, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. J. J. cc: Second Judicial District Court, Department 8 Randall George Angel McDonald Carano Wilson LLP/Reno Washoe District Court Clerk ...continued us with any argument regarding why the district court's dismissal order should be affirmed. Our independent research has revealed no authority to support the premise that citing to a criminal statute or constitutional provision somehow negates the validity of a complaint's remaining factual allegations. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I 947A