- Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 10-28-2022
- Case #: 21-16560
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Graber, C.J.; Friedland, C.J.; & Koh, C.J. Per Curiam
- Full Text Opinion
Appellant appealed the dismissal of its suit for failure to state a claim against Appellees, which was brought pursuant to Nevada's Video Service Law (VSL), alleging that Appellees failed to pay franchise fees. Appellees moved to dismiss the claim, arguing that VSL did not provide for a private right of action. Under Nevada law, courts determine whether a statute creates an implied right of action by considering: "(1) whether the plaintiffs are of the class for whose [special] benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether the legislative history indicates any intention to create or deny a private remedy; and (3) whether implying such a remedy is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative [sch]eme." Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008). The Court reasoned that, because the VSL has express provisions for enforcement by the Nevada Attorney General and the Consumer's Advocate in the Office of the Attorney General, thus vesting enforcement of the Act in state agencies, the language strongly suggests that the legislature intended that the legislative scheme does not include other rights of action. Affirmed.