The Nevada Supreme Court has affirmed a district court's decision to dismiss a contract lawsuit brought by El Cortez Reno Holdings, LLC against Noble Pie Parlor and its operators, while also upholding an award of attorney fees and costs to the defendants.
The consolidated appeals, numbered 87236 and 88370, challenged orders from the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County. Judge Egan K. Walker had granted a motion to dismiss and awarded attorney fees and costs in favor of the defendants in what the court described as a contract action.
El Cortez Reno Holdings filed lawsuits against multiple parties including PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor, Noble Pie Parlor, Ryan Goldhammer, and Trevor Leppek. In the second case, the plaintiff sued PFPCO.'s Noble Pie Parlor doing business as Noble Pie Parlor.
The Nevada Supreme Court, sitting en banc, issued its opinion on Dec. 23, 2025, with Justice Stiglich writing for the court. The opinion addresses fundamental questions about balancing judicial efficiency with the preference for deciding cases on their individual merits.
According to the court's opinion, the case presented two key issues for consideration. First, the court examined whether the district court improperly denied a request for an extension of time to file an opposition to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5). Second, the court considered whether the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss.
The court noted that Nevada courts must balance the goal of efficiently adjudicating cases with the preference for deciding those cases on their individual merits. This ongoing effort to strike that balance was central to the court's analysis in the consolidated appeals.
El Cortez Reno Holdings was represented by attorneys from Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, including Daniel F. Polsenberg, Ogonna Brown, and Kory J. Koerperich from Las Vegas. The company also had representation from The Siegel Group through attorney Sean D. Thueson of Las Vegas.
The defendants were represented by Michael L. Matuska of Matuska Law Offices, Ltd., based in Carson City.
The district court's original ruling apparently found that El Cortez Reno Holdings failed to state a valid claim for relief in its contract action against the restaurant operators. Under NRCP 12(b)(5), defendants can seek dismissal when a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The procedural aspects of the case also played a role in the litigation. The court addressed whether proper procedures were followed regarding extensions of time for filing oppositions to dismissal motions, highlighting the importance of adhering to court deadlines and procedural requirements in civil litigation.
Noble Pie Parlor operates as a restaurant business, while El Cortez Reno Holdings appears to be connected to casino operations based on its name. The specific nature of the contractual dispute between the parties was not detailed in the available portions of the court's opinion.
The award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing defendants suggests that the court found the plaintiff's claims lacked merit or that contractual provisions or statutes provided for such awards. Nevada law permits attorney fee awards in certain contract disputes, particularly when contracts contain attorney fee clauses or when claims are deemed frivolous.
The Supreme Court's affirmance means that El Cortez Reno Holdings will be responsible for paying the defendants' legal costs and attorney fees in addition to losing the underlying litigation. This outcome underscores the risks facing plaintiffs who pursue contract claims that courts ultimately find to be without merit.
The consolidated nature of the appeals indicates that El Cortez Reno Holdings pursued multiple related legal theories or filed separate but related lawsuits against the Noble Pie Parlor defendants. Consolidation typically occurs when cases involve common questions of law or fact that make joint consideration more efficient.
This decision reflects the Nevada Supreme Court's continued emphasis on procedural compliance and the importance of pleading adequate facts to support contract claims. The ruling serves as a reminder to litigants that courts will enforce pleading standards and procedural requirements, even in commercial disputes involving established businesses.
The case also demonstrates how attorney fee provisions can significantly impact the cost-benefit analysis of pursuing litigation, as unsuccessful plaintiffs may face substantial financial consequences beyond simply losing their case.