725 (2012) ("[I]t is mandatory to name all parties of record in a petition for
judicial review of an administrative decision, and a district court lacks
jurisdiction to consider a petition that fails to comply with this
requirement."). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, J.
Gibbons
PICKERING, J., dissenting:
I agree with appellant that Washoe County v. Otto, 128 Nev.
Adv. Op. No. 40, 282 P.3d 719 (2012), is distinguishable from the facts
here because in Otto, the respondent taxpayers were not identified by
name in the caption or body of the petition for judicial review or in an
attached exhibit to the petition. Id. at 723. Here, by attaching the
appeals officer's order to the petition, appellant clearly identified the
proper parties to the judicial review proceedings. I believe that this is
sufficient to meet the requirements of NRS 233B.130(2)(a), which requires
that "the agency and all parties of record to the administrative proceeding"
be named as respondents, but does not specifically require that the parties
be named in the caption to the petition. See Cooksey v. Cargill Meat
,Solutions Corp., 831 N.W.2d 94, 103-04 (Iowa 2013) (concluding that in
evaluating the statutory naming requirement, "the contents of a petition
seeking review of an administrative action should be evaluated in its
entirety" and that identifying the respondents in the body of the petition
SUPREME COURT
OF 2
NEVADA
(0) 194Th (904.4
and serving respondents with notice satisfies the requirement). It appears
that appellant served the petition on respondents and, although appellant
also did not expressly name the respondents in the body of the petition,
the appeals officer's order that identified the parties to the administrative
proceeding, attached as an exhibit, is incorporated as part of the petition.
See Green v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 299 N.W.2d 651, 654 (Iowa 1980)
(concluding that naming the employer in an exhibit attached to a petition
for judicial review meets the statutory naming requirement); cf. NRCP
10(c) (incorporating an exhibit to a pleading as part of the pleading for all
purposes). Therefore, I disagree with the majority that the language of
Otto should be read so broadly so as to encompass the factual
circumstances at issue here, and I respectfully dissent.
Attar
' , J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Kerry Louise Earley, District Judge
Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge
Law Offices of Michael P. Balaban
Dept. of Business and Industry/Div. of Industrial
Relations/Henderson
Greenman, Goldberg, Raby & Martinez
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 794161197