issue in Docket No. 58181, appellant not only continued to pursue that
appeal, but she also filed the underlying complaint—a complaint that
appellant acknowledges is substantively "repetitive" to that filed in Docket
No. 58181. Thus, the district court correctly perceived that appellant was
contemporaneously pursuing two separate lawsuits that asserted the same
causes of action, and the court was within its discretion when it found that
appellant lacked reasonable grounds for doing so. 2 NRS 18.010(2)(b);
Semenza, 111 Nev. at 1095, 901 P.2d at 687. We therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
2 Inopposing respondents' motion for attorney fees, appellant stated
that she would have withdrawn her appeal in Docket No. 58181 if the
district court had permitted her to pursue her claims in the underlying
case. Appellant did not suggest this course of action, when opposing
respondents' motion to dismiss, and the district court was within its
discretion to discount this belated proposal in determining that attorney
fees were appropriate under NRS 18.010(2)(b).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
MIEN
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge
Christensen Law Offices, LLC
Lipson Neilson Cole Seltzer & Garin, P.C.
Eighth District Court Clerk
3