NEVADA STATE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, INTERIOR DESIGN AND RESIDENTIAL DESIGN, Petitioner,
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and DENNIS E. RUSK, Real Party in Interest.
Original petition for a writ of prohibition challenging a
district court order denying a motion to dismiss a petition
for judicial review in a professional licensing matter.
A. Ling, Reno, for Petitioner.
Nersesian & Sankiewicz and Robert A. Nersesian, Las
Vegas, for Real Party in Interest.
HARDESTY, STIGLICH and SILVER, JJ.
grant this petition for a writ of prohibition to clarify that
premature petitions for judicial review do not vest subject
matter jurisdiction in the district court. A petition for
judicial review may not precede the administrative agency
decision it contests, and the agency decision must satisfy
NRS 233B.125 in order to constitute a decision subject to
judicial review. The underlying petition for judicial review
was filed after the administrative agency stated its
disposition on the record, but that utterance did not include
findings of fact and conclusions of law with a concise and
explicit statement of the underlying facts in support. The
disposition that was stated on the record accordingly did not
constitute a final decision for purposes of commencing the
period set forth in NRS 233B.130(2Xd) in which an aggrieved
party may seek judicial review. Consequently, because the
underlying petition for judicial review was filed before the
administrative agency's written order, which did
constitute a final decision, the petition failed to comply
with the relevant statutory requirements. Accordingly, the
petition did not vest jurisdiction in the district court.
Dismissal is an appropriate remedy where the district court
lacks jurisdiction. Because the district court incorrectly
concluded that the agency's oral decision as stated on
the record was subject to challenge by judicial review when
it denied petitioner's motion to dismiss, we grant the
petition for a writ of prohibition and direct the district
court to grant petitioner's motion to dismiss.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
party in interest Dennis Rusk was a licensed architect in
Nevada. In 2011, the Nevada State Board of Architecture,
Interior Design and Residential Design (Board) held a hearing
on two complaints that alleged that Rusk's designs failed
to include required fire-and-life-safety design elements. The
Board concluded that Rusk violated Nevada law and ordered
that Rusk pay a fine, pay the Board's fees and costs,
complete certain courses while his registration as an
architect was placed on probation, and submit to related
conditions on these mandates. Rusk petitioned the district
court for judicial review of the Board's decision, and
the district court affirmed. Rusk appealed that affirmance to
this court, and we dismissed the appeal for failure to timely
file an opening brief. Rusk v. Nev. State Bd. of
Architecture, Interior Design & Residential Design,
Docket No. 61844 (Order Dismissing Appeal, July 30, 2013).
2016, Rusk moved to vacate the Board's disciplinary order
in light of newly discovered evidence, and the Board denied
Rusk's motion. The district court granted Rusk's
subsequent petition for judicial review and remanded to the
Board with a mandate to consider whether to vacate its 2011
disciplinary order in light of newly discovered evidence. On
October 25, 2017, the Board held a hearing pursuant to the
district court's mandate and unanimously passed an oral
motion to deny Rusk relief and uphold the original
disciplinary order. The Board stated its disposition on the
record without discussing specific findings of fact or
conclusions of law supporting its decision and announced that
a written order would be forthcoming. On November 9, 2017,
before the Board filed its written order, Rusk petitioned for
judicial review of the Board's oral October 25 decision.
On December 1, 2017, the Board issued its written order. On
January 9, 2018, and without Rusk having supplemented his
petition after the Board's December 1 order, the Board
moved to dismiss Rusk's petition as jurisdictionally
infirm. The district court denied the Board's motion,
concluding that the Board's oral decision at the October
25 hearing was a sufficient basis for Rusk's petition for
judicial review. The Board petitioned this court for a writ
of prohibition to challenge the district court's order
denying its motion to dismiss.
Board petitions for a writ of prohibition, arguing that NRS
233B.l3O(2)(d) sets forth a mandatory jurisdictional
requirement and that the district court did not have
jurisdiction to consider Rusk's petition for judicial
review because he did not file it in the 30-day period after
the Board's written decision. Whether a district court
may exercise jurisdiction over a premature petition for
judicial review is a matter of first impression.
of prohibition may issue when a district court acts without
or in excess of its jurisdiction and the petitioner lacks a
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.320; NRS
34.330; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107
Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Whether a writ of
prohibition will issue is within this court's sole
discretion. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.
Petitioners bear the burden of showing that this court's
extraordinary intervention is warranted. Club Vista Fin.
Servs., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist Court, 128 Nev. 224,
228, 276 P.3d 246, 249 (2012). This case presents a
jurisdictional issue of first impression and accordingly
warrants consideration on the merits. See Bd. of
Review, Nev. Dep't of Emp't v. Second Judicial Dist.
Court, 133 Nev. 253, 255, 396 P.3d 795, 797 (2017).
administrative agency's order must contain detailed
findings of fact and conclusions of law to constitute a final