D.R. Horton Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Dorrell Square Homeowners' Assoc.)

Court (First Light II), 125 Nev. 449, 215 P.3d 697 (2009), expressly resolved this issue in Dorrell Square's favor. See Dorrell Square Homeowners Assoc. v. Dist. Ct., Docket No. 52827 (Order Granting Petition, September 3, 2009); see also First Light II, 125 Nev. at 457, 215 P.3d at 702-03 ("[W]e conclude that where NRS 116.3102(1)(d) confers standing on a homeowners' association to assert claims 'on matters affecting the common-interest community,' a homeowners' association has standing to assert claims that affect individual units." (quoting NRS 116.3102(1)(d)). In granting Dorrell Square's request for writ relief, however, we directed the district court to determine whether Dorrell's claims "conform to class action principles, and thus, whether Dorrell may file suit in a representative capacity for constructional defects affecting individual units." The district court undertook this analysis, and in a March 2010 order, it concluded that Dorrell had failed to satisfy NRCP 23's class action prerequisites and could therefore not represent its members with respect to claims for alleged defects existing within the members' individual units. Thereafter, Dorrell Square moved the district court to reconsider its March 2010 order. The district court did so, and in a January 2011 order, it concluded that Dorrell Square did not need to satisfy NRCP 23's requirements to pursue claims for alleged construction defects that existed in building envelopes—i.e., defects not necessarily within the members' individual units—meaning that Dorrell Square could pursue these claims without the district court conducting an NRCP 23 analysis.

Petitioner D.R. Horton then filed this writ petition, asking for two forms of relief: (1) that we direct the district court to conduct a thorough NRCP 23 analysis with respect to the claims based on building envelope defects, and (2) that we direct the district court to reinstate its March 2010 order in which it concluded that Dorrell Square could not represent its members with respect to alleged defects existing within their individual units. While D.R. Horton's writ petition was pending, this court issued an opinion in which we reaffirmed and clarified First Light II. Specifically, in Beazer Homes Holding Corp. v. District Court, 128 Nev. , 291 P.3d 128 (2012), we reaffirmed that a district court, upon request, must conduct an NRCP 23 analysis to determine whether litigation by class action is the superior method of adjudicating homeowners' construction defect claims. 128 Nev. at , 291 P.3d at 135. We also clarified, however, that a failure to satisfy NRCP 23's class action prerequisites does not strip a homeowners' association of its ability to litigate on behalf of its members under NRS 116.3102(1)(d). Id. at , 291 P.3d at 134-35. Thus, in light of our opinion in Beazer Homes, we conclude that partial relief is appropriate insofar as D.R. Horton asks us to order the district court to conduct a thorough NRCP 23 analysis. See International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) ("A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. ."). Accordingly, we grant D.R. Horton's writ petition in part and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to conduct a proper NRCP 23 analysis with respect to all

SUPREME COUFIT OF NEVADA 3 ilt)1 I947A

alleged defects.' We decline, however, to order the district court to reinstate its March 2010 order in which it concluded that Dorrell Square could not represent its members with respect to the alleged defects existing within the members' individual units, as this order is inconsistent with our holding in Beazer Homes. See Beazer Homes, 128 Nev. at , 291 P.3d at 134 ("Failure to meet any additional procedural requirements, including NRCP 23's class action requirements, cannot strip a common- interest community association of its standing to proceed on behalf of its members under NRS 116.3102(1)(d)."). It is so ORDERED. 2

C:ii. i A - , J. Saitta

'We deny D.R. Horton's alternative request for a writ of prohibition. 2 In light of this order, we vacate the stay imposed by our April 7, 2011, order.

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Koeller Nebeker Carlson & Haluck, LLP/Las Vegas Marquis Aurbach Coffing James R. Christensen Maddox, Isaacson & Cisneros, LLP Robert C. Maddox Eighth District Court Clerk