In re P.S.

131 Nev., Advance Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
15

IN THE MATTER OF P.S., A MINOR No. 66410
CHILD.

P.S.,
Appellant,
FILED
vs. DEC 2 i 2015
THE STATE OF NEVADA, TRACE K. LINDEMAN
Respondent. CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

BY
DEPUTY CLERK

Appeal from a juvenile court order affirming the
recommendation of the juvenile court master to adjudicate the amount of
restitution appellant owed. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court
Division, Washoe County; Egan K. Walker, Judge.
Affirmed.

Jeremy T. Bosler, Public Defender, and John Reese Petty, Chief Deputy
Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellant.

Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City; Terrence P. McCarthy,
District Attorney, and Shelly K. Scott, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe
County, for Respondent.

BEFORE SAITTA, GIBBONS and PICKERING, JJ.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(0) 1947A e
1c-3q5
 OPINION

By the Court, GIBBONS, J.:
In this opinion, we consider whether NRS 62B.030(4) requires
the juvenile court to direct a hearing de novo if, after a master of the
juvenile court provides notice of the master's recommendations, a person
who is entitled to such notice files a timely request for a hearing de novo.
We conclude that, under NRS 62B.030 the district court has discretion
whether to direct a hearing de novo when one is timely requested.
DISCUSSION
Appellant P.S. argues that, pursuant to NRS 62B.030, a
district court must conduct a hearing de novo after reviewing the
recommendations of a master of the juvenile court if one is timely
requested. We disagree.
Standard of review
This case raises issues of statutory interpretation, which this
court reviews de novo. MGM Mirage v. Nev. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 125 Nev.
223, 226, 209 P.3d 766, 768 (2009). "This court has established that when
it is presented with an issue of statutory interpretation, it should give
effect to the statute's plain meaning." Id. at 228, 209 P.3d at 769. "Thus,
when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, such that it is
capable of only one meaning, this court should not construe that statute
otherwise." Id. at 228-29, 209 P.3d at 769.
NRS 62B.030 gives the district court discretion whether to grant a hearing
de novo
NRS 62B.030(4) directs the district court's review of a juvenile
court master's recommendation. NRS 62B.030(4) states:

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (e,
 After reviewing the recommendations of a master
of the juvenile court and any objection to the
master's recommendations, the juvenile court
shall:
(a) Approve the master's recommendations,
in whole or in part, and order the recommended
disposition;
(b) Reject the master's recommendations, in
whole or in part, and order such relief as may be
appropriate; or
(c) Direct a hearing de novo before the
juvenile court if, not later than 5 days after the
master provides notice of the master's
recommendations, a person who is entitled to such
notice files with the juvenile court a request for a
hearing de novo before the juvenile court.
(Emphasis added.)
We conclude that based upon a plain reading, MRS 62B.030(4)
does not require the district court to conduct a hearing de novo every time
a party requests one. NRS 62B.030(4)'s use of the word "shall" means that
the district court is required to choose one of the three options laid out in
NRS 62B.030(4): (a) accept the master's recommendation in whole or in
part, (b) reject the master's recommendation in whole or in part, or (c)
conduct a hearing de novo if one is timely requested. As long as the
district court chooses one of these three options, it has complied with the
statute. See Trent v. Clark Cnty. Juvenile Court Servs., 88 Nev. 573, 577,
502 P.2d 385, 387 (1972) (concluding that under NRS 62B.030's
predecessor, NRS 62.090, a district court is not required to conduct a
hearing de novo when requested under subpart (c)). Accordingly, the
district court did not violate NRS 62B.030(4) by denying P.S.'s request for
a hearingS de novo because MRS 62B.030(4) grants the district court

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A en
 discretion to decide whether to grant such a hearing. We therefore affirm
the district court's order.

We concur:

CjaP
Saitta
J

gekud
Pickering

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A A41.094