Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

VEGAS AQUA, LLC v. JUPITOR CORP. (CIVIL)

Nevada Supreme Court

• Citations: 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 21

• Docket Number: 89341

• Opinion

• Authorities (7)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (12.2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

142 Nev., Advance Opinion [21

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VEGAS AQUA, LLC, A/K/A LAKE LAS No. 89341
VEGAS WATER SPORTS,
Appellant,
VS. FILED
JUPITOR CORP.,
Respondent. MAR 05 2026
ETH A. B A• WN
CLER1F SU COURT
BY
DEPUTY CLERK

Appeal from a district court judgment after a short trial. Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tara Clark Newberry, Judge.
Vacated and rernanded.

Avalon Legal Group LLC and Bryan Naddafi and Elena Nutenko, Las
Vegas,
for Appellant.

Johnson & Gubler, P.C., and Matthew L. Johnson, Las Vegas,
for Respondent.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, PICKERING. PARRAGUIRRE. and
BELL, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE, J.:

Under the Nevada Short Trial Rules (NSTR), short trial judges
"have all the powers and authority of a district court judge except with
respect to the final judgment." NSTR 3(d). Regarding the final judgment,
short trial judges are to prepare proposed judgments for the district court
to review and either approve or reject. Id. Proposed judgments that are

approved by the district court become the final judgment of the matter.
This appeal examines whether the district court judge or the
short trial judge is to adjudicate any objections to proposed judgments and

subsequent NRCP 59 motions to alter or amend the judgment or for a new
trial. The plain language of the rule requires that objections must be
adjudicated by the district court. Reason and public policy lead us to
similarly conclude that the district court must adjudicate NRCP 59 motions.
Thus, the short trial judge here exceeded her authority by adjudicating an
objection to the entry of judgment and a post-judgment motion to alter or
amend, or for a new trial, under NRCP 59.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In February 2020, appellant Vegas Aqua, LLC, and nonparty
Anthony Rivera—a purported agent of respondent Jupitor Corporation—
entered into a Facilities Rental Agreement. In return for payment, Vegas
Aqua agreed to provide a yacht for an event being planned by Rivera,
purportedly on Jupitor's behalf. The event was scheduled for April 2020.
Shortly after the agreement was signed, Vegas Aqua received $18,280 from
third-party Fiscal Group to cover the $10,785 deposit amount, with the
excess acting as a down payment towards the outstanding rental fee. Due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, Rivera ultimately canceled the event and
requested a refund of the $18,280 payment. Vegas Aqua did not issue a
refund. Jupitor initiated the underlying lawsuit, suing under theories of
unjust enrichment, money due and owing, breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

2
pi 1947A
After mandatory arbitration resulted in an award in favor of
Jupitor, Vegas Aqua requested a trial de novo, and the case was directed to
Nevada's Short Trial Program. Following a short trial, the short trial judge
rendered her proposed judgment awarding $18,280 to Jupitor under
theories of unjust enrichment and money due and owing. Vegas Aqua then
filed an objection to the entry of judgment. The short trial judge was
uncertain whether to rule on the objection and sought advice from the
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Office. The ADR Office instructed
the short trial judge to rule on the objection. The short trial judge filed an
order denying the objection, and the district court subsequently filed its
Judgment on Decision by the Court, approving the short trial judge's
proposed judgment and entering judgment in Jupitor's favor.
Vegas Aqua then filed an NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend
the judgment, or for a new trial, arguing, in part, that the short trial judge
exceeded her authority to adjudicate its objection under NSTR 3(d). The
short trial judge once again sought advice from the ADR Office on whether
to rule on the NRCP 59 motion. The ADR Office instructed the short trial
judge to rule on the motion, and the short trial judge issued an order
denying Vegas Aqua's NRCP 59 motion. In that order, the short trial judge
amended and added to the findings made in her original proposed judgment.
Vegas Aqua now appeals, arguing that the short trial judge
exceeded her authority established under NSTR 3(d) by adjudicating the
objection to the entry of judgment and the NRCP 59 motion. Specifically,
Vegas Aqua argues the plain language of NSTR 3(d) requires objections to
the proposed judgment and NRCP 59 motions to be considered and
adjudicated by the district court, rather than the short trial judge.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(0) I 947A
3
DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, Jupitor claims that Vegas Aqua failed
to preserve its challenges relating to the short trial judge's authority. We
thus review Jupitor's waiver argument before reaching the merits of Vegas
Aqua's challenge.

Vegas Aqua preserved its clairn
Jupitor argues that because the district court served written
notice of the judgment on May 1, 2024, Vegas Aqua's motion to alter or
amend containing its argument pertaining to the short trial judge's
authority was untimely filed on May 31, 2024, two days beyond the 28-day
period provided in NRCP 59(b). Jupitor therefore asserts that Vegas Aqua
waived its argument on appeal. Vegas Aqua contends that the district court
entered judgment on May 1, 2024, but the notice of entry of judgment was
filed by Jupitor on May 3, 2024, and therefore the motion was timely.
Because the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure apply to short
trials, see NSTR 1(c), we begin our analysis there. NRCP 58(c) provides that
when a signed judgment is filed with the clerk of the court, it "constitutes
the entry of the judgment." The entry of judgment differs from the notice of
entry of judgment, which must be filed "[w]ithin 14 days after entry of a
judgment or an order" by a party designated by the court or by any other
party if one is not designated. NRCP 58(e)(1). A motion to alter or amend,
or for a new trial, "must be filed no later than 28 days after service of written
notice of entry of judgment." NR.CP 59(b), (e).
Thus, the timeliness of an NRCP 59 motion depends on the date
of service of the notice of entry. The date when the judgrnent is entered is
irrelevant for purposes of the timeliness of an NRCP 59 motion. Jupitor
filed and served the notice of entry of judgment on May 3, 2024. Vegas

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

4
(0) t 947A cliPto
Aqua's NRCP 59 motion was filed on May 31, 2024, within the 28-day time
frame prescribed by NRCP 59. Accordingly, Vegas Aqua timely filed its
,
NRCP 59 motion. Thus, Vegas Aqua's arguments regarding the short trial
judge's authority are not waived on appeal.
The short trial judge's authority under NSTR 3(d)
The short trial judge, upon advice from the ADR Office,
adjudicated Vegas Aqua's objection to the entry of judgment and NRCP 59
motion. Because Vegas Aqua challenges each of the short trial judge's
rulings separately, we will discuss how the short trial judge's authority
relates to each pleading in turn.
Standard of review
A short trial judge's authority is prescribed by the NSTR and
implicates questions of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo.
See Ca,sey v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 128 Nev. 713, 715, 290 P.3d 265, 267
(2012) CCourt rules, when not inconsistent with the Constitution or certain
laws of the state, have the effect of statutes." (quoting Margold v. Eighth
Jud. Dist. Ct., 109 Nev. 804, 806, 858 P.2d 33, 35 (1993))). "If a statute is
clear and unambiguous, we give effect to the plain meaning of the words,
without resort to the rules of construction." Vanguard Piping Sys., Inc. v.
Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. 602, 607, 309 P.3d 1017, 1020 (2013)
(interpreting NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(D)). However, if the statute's language is
subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous, and we
inay look to reason and public policy for guidance in our interpretation.
Barbara Ann Hollier Tr. v. Shack, 131 Nev. 582, 588-89, 356 P.3d 1085,
1089 (2015) (interpreting NRCP 54(d) (2)(B)).

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

(,), I 17
5
Objections to the entry of judgment
Vegas Aqua argues the plain language of NSTR 3(d)(3) reserves
for the district court the authority to adjudicate objections to a proposed

judgment. Therefore, Vegas Aqua asserts that the short trial judge
exceeded her authority by ruling on Vegas Aqua's objection to the entry of
judgment. Jupitor claims that the short trial judge was justified in
adjudicating the objection under the advice of the ADR Office and the
authority granted by NSTR 3(d).
We start with the relevant language of NSTR 3(d):
While presiding over a case that is in the Short
Trial Program, the short trial judge shall have all
the powers and authority of a district court judge
except with respect to the final judgment. A final
judgment is one that finally resolves all claims
against all parties to the action and leaves nothing
for the short trial judge's future consideration
except for post-judgment issues such as attorney
fees and costs.

(3) After reviewing the proposed
judgment and any objection to the proposed
judgment, the district court shall:
(A) approve the proposed
judgment, in whole or in part; or
(B) reject the proposed judgment,
in whole or in part, and order such relief as may be
appropriate.
NSTR 3(d) plainly and unambiguously provides that objections to the
proposed judgment are to be reviewed by the district court. NSTR 3(d)(3)
states that "[a]fter reviewing the proposed judgment and any objection to
the proposed judgment, the district court shall" either approve or reject the
proposed judgment. (Emphasis added.) While the rule does not expressly
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
6
() 1947A
state that the district court shall adjudicate such objections, it leaves no
discretion for short trial judges to resolve any such objections. Therefore,
we conclude that the plain language of NSTR 3(d) requires that the district
court—and not the short trial judge—review and adjudicate any objections
to the proposed judgment.
The short trial judge's order denying Vegas Aqua's objection
was filed after the proposed judgment but before the district court's entry
of judgment. The district court did not explicitly rule on Vegas Aqua's
objection, and it is unclear whether the district court considered the
objection. In the judgment, the diStrict court concluded, "there is no just
reason for delay of entry of final judgment" and that the district court was
"fully advised of the matter." Although the language in the district court's
judgment may imply that the district court considered the objection before
accepting the proposed judgment, we cannot be certain. Given that the
short trial judge exceeded her authority by reviewing and adjudicating the
objection, and the uncertainty as to whether the district court considered
the objection, we vacate the district court's judgment and direct the district
court on remand to consider the objection consistent with the plain language
of NSTR 3(d).
NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or for new trial
Vegas Aqua and Jupitor provide competing interpretations of
the scope of the short trial judge's authority conferred by NSTR 3(d). Vegas
Aqua argues that an NRCP 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment, or
for new trial, directly challenges the validity of the final judgment; thus, the
except with respect to the final judgment" language of NSTR 3(d) precludes
the short trial judge's review of such motion. Vegas Aqua further asserts
that the "except for post-judgment issues such as attorney fees and costs"

7
language in NSTR 3(d) reserves resolution of post-judgment motions for
attorney fees and costs to short trial judges but not NRCP 59 motions that
seek to change or vacate the final judgment. Conversely, Jupitor interprets
NSTR 3(d) as giving short trial judges the same authority as a district court
judge with the exception of entering the final judgment in the case.
More than one reasonable interpretation of NSTR 3(d) exists
with respect to the adjudication of NRCP 59 rnotions. Because each party
presents a reasonable interpretation of the underlying language, we turn to
reason and public policy to effectuate the rule's intent.
Reason leads us to conclude that adjudication of an NRCP 59
motion is included under the "except with respect to the final judgment"
language of NSTR 3(d). In the context of tolling motions, the United States
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reasoned that motions pursuant to
FRCP 59, the federal equivalent to NRCP 59, suspend the finality of a
district court's judgment for appellate purposes. See Bailey v. County of
Riverside, 414 F.3d 1023, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005); Torrernoro v. Eighth Jud.
Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 578, 580, 512 P.3d 765, 768 (2022) ("Federal cases
interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are strong persuasive
authority, because the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure are based in large
part upon their federal counterparts." (quoting Exec. Mgrnt., Ltd. v. Ticor
Title Ins. Co., 118 Nev. 46, 53, 38 P.3d 872, 876 (2002))). Thus, the
disposition of an NRCP 59 motion would reinstate the finality of the original
entry of judgment—which, per NSTR 3(d) only the district court can enter—
and finally resolve all claims against all parties to the action. See Miltimore
Sales, Inc. v. Int'l Rectifier, Inc., 412 F.3d 685, 688 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he
disposition of the Rule 59(e) motions [to alter or amend the judgment] is an
order or ruling that reinstates the finality of the original entry of judgment
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

8
(01 l'1.17A
and a ruling that rnakes the underlying judgment appealable."). This would
necessarily leave nothing for the short trial. judge's future consideration.
See NSTR 3(d).
The circumstances here further support that adjudication of
NRCP 59 motions by the district court is the more reasonable process. In
the order denying Vegas Aqua's NRCP 59 motion, the short trial judge
amended her findings of fact and conclusions of law in response to the
arguments raised, changing her original proposed judgment. This occurred
after the district court had approved the proposed judgment. Especially
problematic here, many of the post-judgment amendments and additions to
the proposed judgment concern substantive issues raised in the instant
appeal. For a proposed judgment to become effective, however, it must be
expressly approved by the district court as evidenced by the signature of
the district court judge." NSTR 3(d)(4). There is no indication that the
district court approved the arnended findings rnade by the short trial judge
after the proposed judgment had already been approved. While NRCP
59(a)(2) permits such amendments, the short trial judge's resolution of the
motion undermined the finality of the district court's judgment and created
challenges for appellate review in that it is not clear whether the amended
findings and conclusions—which were not approved by the district court—
are proper to review on appeal. Thus, it is the more reasonable
interpretation that the district court has authority to consider and rule on
NRCP 59 motions, as those motions seek to disturb the final judgment.
Public policy also supports having the district court adjudicate
NRCP 59 motions. The short trial judge's ability to amend or add to the
final judgment would undermine the role of the district court and could, as
shown by the circumstances of this case, diminish the significance of the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

9
(01 I947A 40.
district court's required approval of the judgment. While the Short Trial
Program's purpose "is to expedite civil trials," see NSTR 1(a), the program
stresses the importance of the district court's review, see NSTR 3(d)(3), (4).
The district court's adjudication of NRCP 59 motions would protect the
finality of the judgment and ensure meaningful review.
Jupitor argues that this court acknowledged a short trial
judge's decision to adjudicate an NRCP 59 motion in O'Neal v. Hudson, 133
Nev. 209, 394 P.3d 1220 (2017), and thus should continue to allow short
trial judges to adjudicate such motions. However, our analysis in O'Neal
was unrelated to the question of a short trial judge's authority to resolve
post-judgment motions, and our purported acknowledgment of the short
trial judge's adjudication merely constitutes dicta. See id. at 210, 394 P.3d
at 1221. Dicta from a case that confronted issues unrelated to the authority
of the short trial judge is not controlling and has no effect on our conclusions
here. See St. James Vill., Inc. v. Cunningharn, 125 Nev. 211, 216, 210 P.3d
190, 193 (2009) ("Dictum is not controlling.").
CONCLUSION
In sum, the short trial judge exceeded the authority delegated
under the Short Trial Program by adjudicating Vegas Aqua's objection and
NRCP 59 motion. The plain language of NSTR 3(d) requires district courts
to adjudicate objections to proposed judgments, and reason and public policy
support our conclusion that NSTR 3(d) likewise requires district courts to
adjudicate NRCP 59 motions. Based on these conclusions, we need not
reach the remaining issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the
district court's judgment on decision and the short trial judge's orders
denying Vegas Aqua's objection and denying Vegas Aqua's NRCP 59 motion

SUPREME COURT

OF
NEVADA

10
i()) 1947A <:Tir41,
to alter or amend the judgment, or for new trial, and remand this matter to
the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Parraguirre

We concur:

J.
Pickering

Bell

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
11
(0) 1947A • .4.7-51;1:-