WINDSOR WEST VENTURES, LLC v. Nevada Urban Indians, Inc.
Filing
38
ORDER denying 17 , 23 , 36 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 2/4/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
12
13
14
15
WINDSOR WEST VENTURES, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NEVADA URBAN INDIANS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_________________________________ )
3:14-cv-00539-HDM-VPC
ORDER
16
Before the court is the plaintiff Windsor West Ventures, LLC’s
17
(“plaintiff”) motion for summary judgment and two supplements
18
thereto.
(#17, #23 & #36).
Defendant Nevada Urban Indians, Inc.
19
(“defendant”) has opposed (#20), and plaintiff has replied (#22).
20
On June 27, 2013, defendant as tenant and plaintiff as
21
landlord entered into a commercial lease agreement.
The lease term
22
was to commence September 1, 2013, or as soon as improvements
23
requested by the defendant were completed, and run through August
24
31, 2020.
Defendant began occupying the leased premises in January
25
2014.
Shortly thereafter, plaintiff asserts, defendant began
26
complaining about the condition of the property and expressed an
27
intent to vacate.
In response, plaintiff filed this suit for
28
1
1
anticipatory breach of contract and declaratory relief.
2
answered and counterclaimed for breach of the lease.
3
moves for entry of summary judgment on its claims, both on
4
liability and damages, as well as defendant’s counterclaims.1
5
Defendant
Plaintiff now
Summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that
6
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is
7
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
8
The burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of
9
material fact lies with the moving party, and for this purpose, the
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
10
material lodged by the moving party must be viewed in the light
11
most favorable to the nonmoving party.
12
Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970); Martinez v. City of Los Angeles, 141
13
F.3d 1373, 1378 (9th Cir. 1998).
14
that affects the outcome of the litigation and requires a trial to
15
resolve the differing versions of the truth.
16
Workers Int’l Ass’n, 804 F.2d 1472, 1483 (9th Cir. 1986); S.E.C. v.
17
Seaboard Corp., 677 F.2d 1301, 1306 (9th Cir. 1982).
Adickes v. S.H. Kress &
A material issue of fact is one
Lynn v. Sheet Metal
18
Once the moving party presents evidence that would call for
19
judgment as a matter of law at trial if left uncontroverted, the
20
respondent must show by specific facts the existence of a genuine
21
issue for trial.
22
250 (1986).
23
sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to
24
return a verdict for that party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
“[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is
If the evidence is merely
25
26
27
28
1
Subsequent to the plaintiff’s filing of its motion, defendant gave
notice that it intended to vacate by September 30, 2015. Plaintiff asserts
that the defendant stopped paying rent on September 30, 2015. At a hearing
on that date before this court, defendant represented that it had paid rent
through October. Plaintiff did not contest defendant’s representation.
2
1
colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may
2
be granted.”
3
of evidence will not do, for a jury is permitted to draw only those
4
inferences of which the evidence is reasonably susceptible; it may
5
not resort to speculation.”
6
F.2d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 1978).
Id. at 249-50 (citations omitted).
“A mere scintilla
British Airways Bd. v. Boeing Co., 585
7
Plaintiff seeks judgment on its breach of contract claim.
8
However, as defendant has vacated the property, Nevada Revised
9
Statutes § 118.175 requires plaintiff to take reasonable steps to
10
mitigate its damages.
11
to satisfy this obligation is a question of fact that must be
12
resolved at trial.
13
Whether plaintiff has taken sufficient steps
Further, plaintiff seeks judgment on its claim for declaratory
14
relief, which seeks a declaration that defendant has not been
15
constructively evicted.
16
defendant must prove that: (1) plaintiff either acted or failed to
17
act; (2) plaintiff’s action or inaction rendered “the whole or a
18
substantial part of the premises ... unfit for occupancy for the
19
purpose for which it was leased”; (3) defendant vacated the
20
premises within a reasonable time; and (4) defendant provided
21
plaintiff notice of and a reasonable opportunity to cure the
22
defect.
23
335 P.3d 211, 214-15 (Nev. 2014).
24
thin, there is evidence of circumstances that, taken together,
25
could have rendered the premises unfit for the purpose for which it
26
was leased, including but not limited to: failure to complete one
27
of the exam rooms as agreed, multiple nonfunctioning electrical
28
outlets, holes in the wall, damage to items in the office
To prove constructive eviction, the
Mason-McDuffie Real Estate, Inc. v. Villa Fiore Dev., LLC,
Although the evidence is quite
3
1
overnight, as well as doors left unlocked after hours, and a public
2
bathroom – which defendant’s clients used – kept in an unsanitary
3
or unusable condition.
4
28-30, 35, 40, 48-49, 52, 53-57 ,66 & 69)).
5
vacated the premises in a reasonable period of time and gave
6
plaintiff sufficient notice as required by the law are also
7
questions of fact for the trier of fact.
8
issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the
9
constructive eviction claim.
10
(See Pl. Mot. Ex. 2 (Reeves Dep. at 22-23,
Whether defendant
Accordingly, genuine
For similar reasons, triable issues of fact exist as to the
11
defendant’s counterclaim for breach of the lease agreement.
12
particularly, the lease required plaintiff to “install sinks with
13
lower cabinets in two (2) exam rooms. . . .”
14
1)).
15
completed and specifically did not contain a sink in accordance
16
with the lease agreement.
17
35 & 69)).
18
the defendant’s counterclaim, as well.
19
Most
(Mot. Summ. J. Ex.
Reeves testified that one of the exam rooms had not been
Id. Ex. 2 (Reeves Dep. at 22-23, 28-30,
There is therefore a genuine issue of material fact on
Because of the nature of the alleged breaches, the court is
20
not persuaded by plaintiff’s argument that an expert witness is
21
required to a prove that it breached its duties or the lease.
22
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (#17,
23
#23, #36) is hereby DENIED.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
DATED: This 4th day of February, 2016.
26
27
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?