material facts which constitute the cause of action' for [transactional]
attorney malpractice when he files or defends a lawsuit occasioned by that
malpractice, and he 'sustains damage' by assuming the expense,
inconvenience and risk of having to maintain such litigation, even if he
wins it." (quoting NRS 11.207(1)), overruled on other grounds by Kopicko v.
Young, 114 Nev. 1333, 971 P.2d 789 (1998).'
For the same reasons, the district court properly dismissed
appellant's breach of fiduciary duty claim, see Stalk v. Mushkin, 125 Nev.
21, 29-30, 199 P.3d 838, 844 (2009), and appellant's fraud claim, see NRS
11.190(3)(d). We therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
97euldeuu tu J.
Gibbons Pickering
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Robert L. Eisenberg, Settlement Judge
Day R. Williams, Attorney at Law
Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd./Reno
Washoe District Court Clerk
'We are not persuaded by appellant's suggestion that the course of
action proposed in Kopicko v. Young, 114 Nev. 1333, 1337 n.3, 971 P.2d
789, 791 n.3 (1998), is unworkable so as to necessitate applying the
litigation malpractice tolling rule in the transactional malpractice context.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A