1 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU, LEGAL DIVISION

KEVIN C. POWERS, General Counsel

2 Nevada State Bar No. 6781
401 S. Carson St.
3 Carson City, NV 89701
Tel: (775) 684-6830
4 Fax: (775) 684-6761
Email: kpowers@lcb.state.nv.us
5 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor Nevada Legislature

7 FIRST JUDICIAL, DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA

CARSON CITY
8
THE HONORABLE JAMES SETTELMEYER,
9 THE HONORABLE JOE HARDY, THE
HONORABLE HEIDI GANSERT, THE
10 HONORABLE SCOTT HAMMOND, THE Case No. 19 OC 00127 1B
HONORABLE PETE GOICOECHEA, THE
11 HONORABLE BEN KIFCKHEFER, THE Dept. No. I
HONORABLE IRA HANSEN, and THE
12 HONORABLE KEITH PICKARD, in their
official capacities as members of the Senate of
13 the State of Nevada and individually; GREAT NEVADA LEGISLATURE'S
BASIN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, CASE APPEAL STATEMENT
14 LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;
GOODFELLOW CORPORATION, a Utah
15 corporation qualified to do business in the State
of Nevada; KIMMII-C A N D Y COMPANY, a
16 Nevada corporation; KEYSTONE CORP., a
Nevada nonprofit corporation; NATIONAL
17 FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS, a California nonprofit corporation
18 qualified to do business in the State of Nevada;
NEVADA FRANCHISED AUTO DEALERS
19 ASSOCIATION, a Nevada nonprofit corporation;
NEVADA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, INC., a
20 Nevada nonprofit corporation; and RETAIL
ASSOCIATION OF NEVADA, a Nevada
21 nonprofit corporation,

22 Plaintiffs,

23 vs.

24
 1 S T A T E OF NEVADA ex rel. THE
HONORABLE NICOLE CANNIZZARO, in her
2 o f f i c i a l capacity as Senate Majority Leader; THE
HONORABLE KATE MARSHALL, in her
3 o f f i c i a l capacity as President of the Senate;
CLAIRE J. CLIFT, in her official capacity as
4 S e c r e t a r y of the Senate; THE HONORABLE
STEVE SISOLAK, in his official capacity as
5 G o v e r n o r of the State of Nevada; NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION; NEVADA
6 D E PA R T M E N T OF MOTOR VEHICLES; and
DOES I-X, inclusive,
7
Defendants,
8
and
9
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE
10 S T A T E OF NEVADA,

11 I I D e f e n d a n t -Intervenor.

12
NEVADA LEGISLATURE'S
13 CASE APPEAL STATEMENT

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24
 1 CASE APPEAL STATEMENT

2 Defendant-Intervenor Legislature of the State of Nevada ("Legislature"), by and through its

3 counsel t h e Legal Division o f the Legislative Counsel Bureau ( " L C B Legal") under

4 NRS 218F.720, hereby files its Case Appeal Statement under NRAP 3(f).

5 1. Name of appellant filing this case appeal statement:

6 The Legislature of the State of Nevada.

7 2. Identify the judge issuing the decision, judgment, or order appealed from:

8 Honorable James Todd Russell.

9 3. Identify each appellant and the name and address of counsel for each appellant:

10 (a) Name of appellant.

11 The Legislature of the State of Nevada.

12 (b) Name and Address of Appellate Counsel.

13 Kevin C. Powers, General Counsel

Nevada State Bar No. 6781
14 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU, LEGAL DIVISION
401 S. Carson St.
15 Carson City, NV 89701
Tel: (775) 684-6830; Fax: (775) 684-6761
16 kpowers@lcb.state.nv.us

17 4. Identify each respondent and the name and address of appellate counsel, if known,
for each respondent (if the name of a respondent's appellate counsel is unknown, indicate
18 as much and provide the name and address of that respondent's trial counsel):

19 (a) Name of Respondents.

20 (1) Honorable James Settelmeyer, Honorable Joe Hardy, Honorable Heidi Gansert,
Honorable Scott Hammond, Honorable Pete Goicoechea, Honorable Ben Kieckhefer,
21 Honorable Ira Hansen, and Honorable Keith Pickard, i n their official capacities as
members of the Senate of the State of Nevada and individually;
22
(2) Great Basin Engineering Contractors, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;
23
(3) Goodfellow Corporation, a Utah corporation qualified to do business in the State of
24 Nevada;

-1-
 1
(4) Kimmie Candy Company, a Nevada corporation;
2
(5) Keystone Corp., a Nevada nonprofit corporation;
3
(6) National Federation O f Independent Business, a California nonprofit corporation
4 q u a l i f i e d t o do business in the State of Nevada;

5 ( 7 ) Nevada Franchised Auto Dealers Association, a Nevada nonprofit corporation;

6 ( 8 ) Nevada Trucking Association, Inc., a Nevada nonprofit corporation;

7 ( 9 ) Retail Association Of Nevada, a Nevada nonprofit corporation.

8 ( b ) Name and Address o f Trial Counsel. Respondents' appellate counsel i s not

known. A l l respondents were represented by the following trial counsel:
9
Karen A. Peterson, Esq.
10 N e v a d a State Bar No. 366
Justin Townsend, Esq.
11 N e v a d a State Bar No. 12293
ALLISON MACKENZIE, LTD.
12 4 0 2 N. Division St.
Carson City, NV 89703
13 T e l : (775) 687-0202
kpeterson@allisonmackenzie.com
14 i t o w n s e n d @ a l l i s o n m a c k e n z i e . c o m

15 5 . Indicate whether any attorney identified above in response to question 3 or 4 is not

licensed to practice law in Nevada and, i f so, whether the district court granted that
16 a t t o r n e y permission to appear under SCR 42 (attach a copy of any district court order
granting such permission):
17
All attorneys identified above in response to questions 3 and 4 are licensed to practice
18 l a w in Nevada.

19 6 . Indicate whether appellant was represented by appointed or retained counsel in the

district court:
20
Appellant Legislature was represented i n the district court b y LCB Legal as the
21 L e g i s l a t u r e ' s statutorily authorized counsel under NRS 218F.720.

22 7 . Indicate whether appellant is represented by appointed o r retained counsel on

appeal:
23
Appellant Legislature is represented on appeal b y LCB Legal as the Legislature's
24 s t a t u t o r i l y authorized counsel under NRS 218F.720.

-2-
 8. Indicate whether appellant was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and the
2 d a t e of entry of the district court order granting such leave:

3 I A p p e l l a n t Legislature was not granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

4 9 . Indicate the date the proceedings commenced i n the district court (e.g., date
complaint, indictment, information, or petition was filed):
5
On July 19, 2019, the complaint was filed in the district court.
6
10. Provide a brief description of the nature of the action and result in the district
7 c o u r t , including the type of judgment or order being appealed and the relief granted by
the district court:
8
Plaintiffs brought this action as a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of Senate
9 B i l l No. 542 (SB 542) and Senate Bill No. 551 (SB 551) of the 2019 legislative session.
SB 542, 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 400, § 1, at 2501-02; SB 551, 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 537, §§ 2,
10 3 , 37, 39, at 3273, 3275, 3294.

11 T h e principal issue of constitutional law is whether the challenged provisions of the bills
are unconstitutional because the Senate d i d n o t pass the bills b y a two-thirds
12 s u p e r m a j o r i t y vote under Article 4, Section 18(2) o f the Nevada Constitution. T h a t
constitutional provision requires a supermajority vote o f two-thirds o f the members
13 e l e c t e d to each House o f the Legislature to pass a bill which "creates, generates, or
increases any public revenue i n any form, including but not limited to taxes, fees,
14 a s s e s s m e n t s and rates, or changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments
and rates."
15
On October 7, 2020, the district court entered an order and final judgment adjudicating all
16 t h e claims of all the parties and granting final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.
17
In its order and final judgment granting Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief, the
18 d i s t r i c t court declared that SB 542 and SB 551 were bills which create, generate, or
increase any public revenue in any form and were subject to the two-thirds supermajority
19 r e q u i r e m e n t under Article 4, Section 18(2) o f the Nevada Constitution. Because the
Senate did not pass the bills by a two-thirds supermajority under Article 4, Section 18(2)
20 o f the Nevada Constitution, the district court declared that SB 542 and Sections 2, 3, 37,
and 39 of SB 551 are unconstitutional and invalid. However, the district court declared
21 t h a t , under the severance doctrine, the remaining provisions of SB 551 are severed and
remain in effect.
22
In its order and final judgment granting Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, the district
23 c o u r t enjoined Defendant Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Defendant Nevada
Department of Taxation from collecting and enforcing the unconstitutional fees and taxes
24 e n a c t e d by SB 542 and Sections 2, 3, 37, and 39, of SB 551, respectively, and ordered that

-3-
 1 a l l fee payers and taxpayers from whom such fees and taxes have already been collected
are entitled to an immediate refund thereof with interest at the legal rate of interest from
2 t h e date collected.

3 A d d i t i o n a l l y , in its order and final judgment, the district court concluded that Plaintiffs
are not entitled to recover attorney's fees as special damages for bringing their claims for
4 d e c l a r a t o r y and injunctive relief because there was not bad faith in regard to this matter.
Therefore, the district court granted final judgment in favor of Defendants on any claims
5 t o recover attorney's fees as special damages.

6 F i n a l l y , the individual Executive and Legislative Defendants, who are being sued in their
official capacities, argued that they are not necessary and proper party-defendants and are
7 e n t i t l e d to absolute legislative immunity as a matter of law in this action. T h e district
court ordered that those individual Executive and Legislative Defendants are dismissed
8 f r o m this action, namely: Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro; Secretary of the
Senate Claire Clift; Governor Steve Sisolak; and Lieutenant Governor Kate Marshall.
9
11. Indicate whether the case has previously been the subject of an appeal to or
10 o r i g i n a l writ proceeding in the Supreme Court and, if so, the caption and Supreme Court
docket number of the prior proceeding:
11
This case has previously been the subject of an original writ proceeding in the Supreme
12 C o u r t :

13 ( a ) Caption.

14 S t a t e of Nevada ex rel. Nicole J. Cannizzaro, in her official capacity as Senate Majority

Leader of the Senate of the State of Nevada; Claire J. Clift, in her official capacity as
15 S e c r e t a r y o f the Senate o f the State o f Nevada; Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal
Division, in its official capacity as the legal agency of the Legislative Department of the
16 S t a t e of Nevada; Brenda J. Erdoes, Esq., in her official capacity as Legislative Counsel
and Chief of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, and in her professional
17 c a p a c i t y as an attorney and licensed member of the State Bar of Nevada; and Kevin C.
Powers, Esq., i n his official capacity as Chief Litigation Counsel o f the Legislative
18 C o u n s e l Bureau, Legal Division, and in his professional capacity as an attorney and
licensed member of the State Bar of Nevada, Petitioners,
19 v s .
The First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Carson
20 C i t y ; and the Honorable James Todd Russell, District Judge, Respondents,
and
21 J a m e s A. Settelmeyer, Joseph P. Hardy, Heidi Seevers Gansert, Scott T. Hammond, Pete
Goicoechea, Ben Kieckhefer, Ira D. Hansen, and Keith F. Pickard, i n their official
22 c a p a c i t i e s as members of the Senate of the State of Nevada and individually, Real Parties
in Interest.
23

24

-4-
 1 ( b ) Supreme Court docket number.

2 D o c k e t No. 80313.

3 T h
e original writ proceeding in Docket No. 80313 resulted in a published disposition.
State ex rel. Cannizzaro v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 34, 466 P.3d 529
4 ( 2 0 2 0 ) .

12. I n d i c a t e whether this appeal involves child custody or visitation:

6I T h i s appeal does not involve child custody or visitation.

7 1 3 . I f this is a civil case, indicate whether this appeal involves the possibility of
settlement:
8
This appeal does not involve the possibility of settlement.
9

10 D A T E D : T h i s 9 t h d a y of October, 2020.

11 Respectfully submitted,

12
By:
13 KEVIN C. POWERS
General Counsel
14 Nevada State Bar No. 6781
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL BUREAU, LEGAL DIVISION
15 401 S. Carson St.
Carson City, NV 89701
16 Tel: (775) 684-6830; Fax: (775) 684-6761
Email: kpowers@lcb.state.nv.us
17 Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor Nevada Legislature

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

-5-
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2 I hereby certify that I am an employee of the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal

3 Division, and that on the 9 t h day of October, 2020, pursuant to NRAP 3(d) and NRAP 25(c)

4 and the parties' stipulation and consent in writing to service by electronic mail, I served a true and

5 correct copy of Nevada Legislature's Case Appeal Statement, by electronic mail and by United

6 States Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the following:

7 KAREN A. PETERSON, ESQ. AARON D. FORD

JUSTIN TOWNSEND, ESQ. Attorney General
8 ALLISON MACKENZIE, LTD. CRAIG A. NEWBY
402 N. Division St. Deputy Solicitor General
9 Carson City, NV 89703 OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEY GENERAL
kpeterson@allisonmackenzie.com 555 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900
10 itownsend@allisonmackenzie.com Las Vegas, NV 89101
Attorneys for Plaintiffs CNewby@ag.nv.gov
11 Attorneys for Defendants State of Nevada ex rel.
Nevada Department of Taxation and Nevada
12 Department of Motor Vehicles

13

14

15
Kevin C. Powers
16 An Employee of the Legislative Counsel Bureau

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

-6-
 1 AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
CRAIG A. NEWBY (Bar No. 8591)
Deputy Solicitor Gen.eral
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
555 E. Washington Ave., Ste 3900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 486-3420 (phone)
(702) 486-3768 (fax)
CNewhy@ag.nv.gov

Attorneys for the Nevada Department of

Taxation and the Neucio 1)(7)ortmo0 of
Motor 'Vehicles

FIRST J U D I C I A L DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA

10 CARSON CITY

11 THE HONORA.B J A M E S
SETTELMEYER, et al., Case No. 1.9 OC 00127-1B
12
Plain iffs, Dept. No. I
13

14

15 STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel., THE

HONORABLE NICOLE CANNIZZARO, et
16 al.,

17 Defendants.

18 'ASE A P P E A L S TAT E M E N T FOR T H E N E VA D A D E PA RT M E N T OF TA X AT I O N

AND THE N E VA D A D E PA RT M E N T OF MOTOR VEHICLES
19
20 Defendants Nevada Department o f Taxation and Nevada Department o f Motor

21 Vehicles hereby, file their Case Appeal Statement pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate

22 Procedure 3(f).

23 1. N a m e of appellant filing this case appeal statement:

24 Nevada Department of Taxation and Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles.

25 2. I d e n t i f y the judge issuing the decision, judgment, or order appealed

26 Honorable James Todd Russell.

27

28 11
 1 3. I d e n t i f y each appellant and the name and address o f counsel f o r each
appellant:
9

3 (a) Name of appellant

4 Nevada Department of Taxation and Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles.
(b) Name and Address of Appellate Counsel

6 C r a i g A. Newby, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 8591
7 D e p u t y Solicitor General
Nevada Office of the Attorney General
8 5 5 5 E. Washington Ave., Ste. 3900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
9 ( 7 0 2 ) 486-3420 (phone)
(702) 486-3768 (facsimile)
10 c n e w b y @ a g . n v. g o v
U. 4 . I d e n t i f y each respondent and the name and address of appellate counsel, if
known, for each respondent ( i f the name o f a respondent's appellate
12 c o u n s e l is unknown, indicate as much and provide the name and address
of that respondent's trial counsel):
13
14 ( a ) N a m e of Respondents
13 ( 1 ) H o n o r a b l e James Settehneyer, Honorable Joe Hardy, Honorable Heidi
16 G a n s e r t , Honorable Scott Hammond, Honorable Pete Goicoechea, Honorable
17 B e n Kieckhefer, Honorable Ira Hansen, and Honorable Keith Pickard, in their
18 o f f i c i a l capacities as members of the Senate of the State of Nevada and
19 i n d i v i d u a l l y ;
20 ( 2 ) G r e a t Basin Engineering Contractors, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
21 c o m p a n y :
22 ( 3 ) Goodfellow Corporation, a Utah corporation qualified to do business in
23 t h e State of Nevada;
24 ( 4 ) K i m mie Candy Company, a Nevada corporation;
25 ( 5 ) K e y s t o n e Corp., a Nevada nonprofit corporation;
26 ( 6 ) N a t i o n a l . Federation of independent Business, a California nonprofit
27 c o r p o r a t i o n qualified to do business in the State of Nevada;
28 / 1 1

2
 1 (7) N e v a d a Franchised Auto :Dealers Association, a Nevada nonprofit
2 corporation;
3 (8) N e v a d a Trucking Association, Inc., a Nevada nonprofit corporation;
4 (9) R e t a i l Association Of Nevada, a Nevada nonprofit corporation,
5 (b) N a m e and Address of Trial Counsel
6 Respondents' appellate counsel i s n o t known. A l l . respondents were
represented by the following trial counsel:
8 Karen A. Peterson, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 366
9 Justin Townsend, Esq.
Nevada State Bar No. 12293
10 Allison MacKenzie, Ltd.
402 N. Division St.
111 Carson City, NV 89703
Tel: (775) 687-0202
12 kpeterson@allisonmackenzie.com
jtownsend@allisonmackenzie.com
13
14 Indicate whether any attorney identified above in response to question 3
or 4 is not licensed to practice law in Nevada and, if so, whether the district
15 court granted that attorney permission to appear under SCR 42 (attach a
copy of any district court order granting such permission):

17 All attorneys identified above i n response to questions 3 and 4 are licensed to

18 practice law in. Nevada.

19 6, I n d i c a t e whether appellant was represented b y appointed o r retained
counsel in the district court:
20
21 Appellants Nevada Department of Taxation and Nevada Department of Motor
22 Vehicles is represented by retained counsel before the district court.
23 7. I n d i c a t e w h e t h e r appellant i s represented b y appointed o r retained
counsel on appeal:
24
25 Appellants Nevada Department of Taxation and Nevada Department M o t o
26 Vehicles is represented by retained counsel on appeal.
27 / / /
28 / / /

3
 Indicate w h e t h e r a p p e l l a n t w a s g r a n t e d l e a v e t o p r o c e e d i n f o r m a
pauperis, a n d the date o f entry o f the d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r g r a n t i n g such
leave:

None of these appellants sought or were granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

4 Indicate t h e date t h e proceedings commenced i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t (e.g.,

date complaint, indictment, i n f o r m a t i o n , or petition was filed):

On July 19, 2019, the complaint was filed in the district court.

7 0. P r o v i d e a b r i e f description o f the n a t u r e o f the a c t i o n a n d r e s u l t i n t h e

d i s t r i c t court, i n c l u d i n g the type o f ,iudgment or order being appealed and
8 the r e l i e f granted b y the d i s t r i c t court:
9 Plaintiffs brought this action as a constitutional challenge to certain provisions of

1.0 Senate 'Bill No. 542 (SB 542) and Senate B i l l No. 551 (SB 551) o f the 2019 legislative

11 session. SB 542, 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 400, § 1, at 2501-02; SB 551, 2019 Nev. Stat., ch. 537,

12 §§ 2. 3, 37, 39, at 3273, 3275, 3294.

13 The principal constitutional challenge is whether the challenged provisions of the

14 rills are u.nconstitutional because the Senate d i d n o t pass the bills b y a two-thirds

15 supermajority vote under Article 4, Section 18(2) o f the Nevada Constitution. T h a t

16 constitutional provision requires a supermajority vote of two-thirds of the members elected

17 to each House of the Legislature to pass a bill which "creates, generates, in n rea es any

18 iblic revenue in any :form, including but not limited to taxes, fees, ssessments and rates,

or changes in the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and rates."
20 On October 7 , 2020, t h e district court entered a n order a n d f i n a l judgment

21 adjudicating all claims of all parties. granting final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on their

22 claims for declaratory and injunctive relief.

23 In its order and final judgment. granting Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief, the

24 district court declared t h a t SB 542 and SB 551 were bills which create, generate, o r
ncrease any public revenue in any form and were subject. to the two-thirds supermajority

26 Tquirement. under Article 4, Section 18(2) of the Nevada Constitution. Because the Senate

27 did not pass the bills by a two-thirds supermajority under Article 4, Section. 18(2) of the

28 N e v a d a Constitution, the district court declar•: ' l f t l 5 4 2 and Sections 2, 3, 37, and 39

4
 Division, i n i t s official capacity a s t h e legal agency o f the
Legislative Department o f the State o f Nevada; Brenda J .
Erdoe,s, Esq., in her official capacity as Legislative Counsel and
Chief of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, and in
3 hcr professional capacity as an attorney and licensed member of
the State B a r o f Nevada; and Kevin C. Powers, Esq., i n his
4
official capacity as Chief Litigation Counsel of the Legislative
5 Counsel Bureau, Legal Division, and in his professional capacity
as an attorney and licensed member of the State Bar of Nevada,
6 Petitioners.
v.
7
The First Judicial District Cortrt of the Slate of Nevada, in
8 and for the County of Carson City; and the Honorable James Todd
Russell, District Judge, Respondents.
and
James A. Settelmeyer, Joseph P. Hardy, Heidi Seevers
10
Gansert, Scott T. Hammond, Pete Goicoechea, Ben Kieckhefer,
1 Ira D. Hansen, and Keith F.-Pickard, in their official capacities as
members of the Senate of the State of Nevada and individually,
12 Real Parties in Interest.
13 (b) S u p r e m e C o u r t docket number
14 Docket No. 80313.
15 The original writ proceeding in Docket No. 80313 resulted in a published disposition.
16 State ex eel. Cann =aro v. First Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 34, 466 P.3d 529 (2020).
1
17 12. I n d i c a t e w h e t h e r this appeal involves child custody or visitation:

18 'l leis appeal does not involve child custody or visitation.

19 13. I f this is a c i v i l case, indicate w h e t h e r this appeal involves the possibility
of settlement:
20
This appeal does not involve the possibility of settlement.
21
DATED this 9th day of October, 2020.
22
AARON D. FORD
23 At to rney General

24 By:
CRAIG A. NEWBY (Bar No. 8591)
Deputy Solicitor General
State of Nevada
26 Office of the Attorney General
555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 3900
27 Las Vegas, NV 89101
cnowby(t3ag.nv.gov
28

6
 AFFIRMATION
2 Pursuant t o MRS 239B.030(4), the undersigned does hereby affirm t h a t the
3 preceding document does not contain the Social Security number of any person.
DATED this 9th day of October, 2020.

AARON D. FORD
Attorney General

By:
CRAIG A. NEWBY- a r No. 8591)
Deputy Solicitor General
9
1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25
26
27
28
 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that 1 mailed by United States, First Class, the foregoing CASE
APPEAL STATEMENT on the 9th day of October; 2020; including service upon the
4 following counsel of record:

5 K a r e n A. Peterson, Esq.
Justin M. Townsend, Esq.
6 A L L I S O N MacKENZIE, LTD.
402 North Division Street
Carson City, Nevada 89703
8 A t t o r n e y s for Plaintiffs
Kevin C. Powers, Esq., General Counsel
Legislative Counsel Bureau, Legal Division
10 410 South Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701
11
Attorneys for The Legislature o
12 the State of Nevada
13
14 By:
Caitie Collins, Employee of the Office
15 of the Attorney General
16
17
18
1.9
20
21
92
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
 kaAa

1
221OCT -7$
4.

3
4

6 IN 'I'HE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TII1 STATE OF V A D A

7 IN ANA) FOR CARSON CITY
8
9
THE HONORABLE JAMES SETTELMEYER.
•
17HE HONORABLE JOE HARDY,
10 THE ITONORABLE HEIDI GANSERT. Case No: 19 OC 00127 1B
THE HONORABLE SCOTT IIAIVEMOND.
11 THE HONORABLE PETE GOICOECHEA. Dept. No: I
-I'HE HONORABLE BIN KIECKITEFER,
rti
12 THE HONORABLE IRA .1 JANSEN, and
:„.‘• THE HONORABLE KEITH PICKARD,
1:3 in their official capacities as members of the
z:5
Senate of the State of Nevada and individually:
14 GREAT BASIN ENGINEERING
'f5:1 CONTRACTORS. LLC, a Nevada limited
--: 15 liability company; GOODFELLOW
CORPORATION. a Utah corporation qualified
r-'r. 16 to do business in the State of Nevada;
.•
KIMMIE CANDY COMPANY. a Nevada
17 corporation: KEYSTONE CORP.. a Nevada ORDER MATH. HEARING
f. nonprofit corporation; NATIONAL FEDERATION ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2020,
es. 18 OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS. a California AND FINAL JUDGMENT
nonprofit corporation qualified to do business
19 in. the State of Nevada: NEVADA FRANCHISED
AUTO DEALERS ASSOCIATION. a Nevada
70 nonprofit corporation: NEVADA TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION. INC., a Nevada nonprofit
21 corporation; and RETAIL ASSOCIATION
OF NEVADA. a Nevada nonprofit corporation,
22
Plaintiffs,
3

VS.
24
STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. THE
75 HONORABLE NICOLE CANNIZZARO.
in her official capacity as Senate Majority
26 Leader: H O N O R A B L E KATE
MARSHALL, in her official capacity as
27 President of the Senate: CLAIRE J. CLIFF,
28 in her official capacity as Secretary of
the Senate; THE HONORABLE STEVE
 SIS(.)1,AK. in his official capacity as
Governor of the State of Nevada; NEVADA
DEPARPYIENT OF TAXATION;
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR
VEHICLES: and DOES 1-X inclusive.

jefendants.

LEGISLATURE OF THE
STATE OF NEVADA,
7
Defendant- nt - v e n o r.

© R D F E R HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 21, 202(1 AND FINAL M E N T

This matter is before the Court on the following dispositive motions: (1) Executive; De!elndanis
Motion to Dismiss: (2) Motion for Summary judgment riled by Plaintiffs: (3) Counter-Motion Ibr
13 Summary Judgment filed by Legislative Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor Legislature; and (4)
14 Executive Defendants' Joinder to Legislative Defendants' Counter-Motion for Summary judgment.
15 The Court. having read the papers and pleadings on file herein, having heard oral argument on
16 September 21. 2020. and go cause appearing therefore. finds and orders as follows:
Relevant Procedural History
i8 Plaintiff's. a group of Republican State Senators ("Plaintiff Senators t h e i r o rieig a
19 and individually. and various business interests. filed a First Amended Complaint hercin on duly
20 2019, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 542 (Sli :542) and Senate Bill No. 551 (Sit

21 551) of the 80th (20 0 Die Nevada Legislature as well as the constitutionality of the manner
in which each bill was passed into law. Plaintiffs allege lbur claims for relied including that SB 542
and SB 551 were each subject to the two-thirds majority requirement in Article 4. Section 18(2) o
24 Nevada Constitution and that SB 542 and SB 551 are unconstitutional because the Senate passed each
bill by a major y of all the members elected to the Senate under Article 4. Section 18(1) of the Nevada
Constitution. instead of a two-thirds majority of all the members elected to the Senate under Article 4.
Section 18(2 o f the Nevada Constitution. Plaintiffs ask for. among other relief, a declaration that SB

28
 542 andSE3551 are unconstitutional in violation o('Article 4. Section 18(2), and Plaintiffs also ask for
2 a n injunction against enforcement of SB 542 and S13 551,
Plaintiffs named state officers and agencies of the executive branch and legislative branch as
4 defendants in the First Amended Complaint. The executive branch defendants arc: (1) the Honorable
: K a t e Marshall, in her official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of the State of Nevada and President of

6 t h e Senate: (2) the Honorable Steve Sisolak. in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Nevada:
7 ( 3 ) the Nevada Department o f Taxation: and (4) the Nevada Department o f Motor 'Vehicles
8 (collectively the "Executive Defendants"). The Executive Defendants are represented by the Office of
9 t h e Attorney General.
10 T h e legislative branch defendants are the Honorable Nicole Cannizzaro, in her official capacity
11 a s Senate Majority Leader, and Claire ('lift in her official capacity as the Secretary of the Senate
12 (collectively the "Legislative Defendants"). The Legislative Defendants are represented by the
13 Legislative Counsel Bureau. Legal Division ("LCB Legal"), under NRS 218F.720. The Legislature
14 o f the State of Nevada ("Legislature") intervened as a Defendant-Intervenor and is represented by
15 L C B Legal under NRS 218E720.
16 O n September 16. 2019, Executive Defendants tiled a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First
17 Amended Complaint. and Legislative Defendants filed an Answer to Piaintiffs' First Amended
18 Complaint. On September 30.2019. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Executive Defendants'Motion
19 t o Dismiss or, in the Alternative. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.
20 O n October 24. 2019. Plaintiff Senators James Settelmeyer. Joe Hardy. Heidi Gansert. Scott
21 Hammond. Pete Goicoechea. Ben Kieckhefer, Ira Hansen and Keith Pickard (collectively "Plaintiff
72 Senators") tiled a Motion to Disqualify LCB Legal as counsel for Defendants Senator Cannizzaro and

Secretary Clift. Defendants Senator Cannizzaro and Secretary Clifl filed an Opposition to the Motion

24 t o Disqualify.
Because the Court's resolution of the Motion to Disqualify could have affected whether LCB
26 Legal could continue to provide legal representation to Defendants Senator Cannizzaro and Secretary
27 C l i f t against the claims o f Plaintiff Senators i n this action. including providing such legal
28 representation regarding the parties' dispositivc motions. the parties entered into a Stipulation and
 1O r d e r to stay proceedings regarding the parties' dispositive motions pending the Court's resolution of
2 t h e Motion to Disqualify.

On November 2. 2019. the Legislature. also represented by LCB Legal. filed a motio., to
4 intervene as a defendant-intervenor under NRCP 24 and NRS 218E720 to protect the official interests
5 o f the Legislature
—• and defend the constitutionality of SB 542 and SB 551.

6 O n December 19. 2019, the Court entered an order which granted the Plaintiff Senators'
7 motion to disqualify .LCB Legal from representing the Legislative Defendants in their official capacity
8 a s their statutorily authorized counsel under NRS 218F.720. The Court's order also denied a stay of
9 t h e district court proceedings requested by 1.,C13 Legal to address the consequences of the order
10 requiring the Legislative Defendants to obtain separate outside counsel to represent them in their
11 o ff i c i a l capacity in this litigation.

,r, Also. on December 19. 2019. the Court entered a separate order which granted the
13 Legislature's motion to intervene as a defendant-intervenor. I n that order. the Court also denied the
14 Plaintiff Senators' motion to disqualify 1.03 Legal from representing the I :egislature as its statutorily
15 authorized counsel under NRS 218F.720. On December 26, 2019. the Legislature filed an Answer to
16 Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
17 O n January 10. 2020. the Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order staying the District Court's
18 proceedings in this matter pending resolution of the Legislative Defendants' Petition For Writ of.
-
19 Mandamus seeking the Supreme Court's review of the District Court's Order disqualifying 1.,C,B Leeqd
z
71.
20 as counsel for the Legislative Defendants. State ex rel. (annizzaro F i r s t hid. Dist. O., No. 80313
21. (Nev. Jan, 10.2020) (Order Directing Answer. Granting Stay, and Scheduling Oral Argument). The
Supreme Court's stay was granted while the parties were in the process of briefing dispositive motions
on the merits of the constitutional claims. Additionally. as a result of the stay. the District C art
24 vacated the hearing set in this matter for March 9. 2020, on the parties' dispositive motions on the

25 merits of the constitutional claims.

26 On June 26, 2020. the Supreme Court issued an Opinion and Writ of landannrs directing the

27 District Court to vacate its Order disqualifying LCB 1...egal as counsel for the Legislative Defendants,
28

4
 ,9ate cx rel. Cannizzaro v. First .htd. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev.Adv. Op. 34. 466 1).3d 529 (2020). The
Supreme Court also lifted its stay of the District Court's proceedings in this matter. I d
On July 7. 7020. LCB Legal served the District Court, by regular L.S. Mail, with the Su
Court's Opinion and Writ of Mandamus. A n Order Vaca- • g Order Disqualifying T.CB LeL,a was
'red by the Court on 'July 9.2020.

On August 13. 2020, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Order regarding a briefing
7 schedule to complete briefing on their dispositive motions. O n August 18, 2020. Legislative
8 Defendants and. Defendant-Intervenor Legislature filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs" Motion liar
Summary Judgment and a Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment. On August 21, 2020, Executive
Defendants filed a Joinder -> Legislative Defendants' Count-l•-Motion for Summary Judgment. On
11 September 4. 2020, PlaintiftS tiled a Reply in Support of then Motion for Summary Judgment
)pposition to the Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment. O n September 14. 2020. Legislative
13 Defendants and Defendant-Intervenor Legislature filed a Reply in Support of their Counter-Motion
14 for Summary Judgment. Finally. on September 21, 2020. the Court held a hearing to receive oral
15 arguments from the parties on their dispositive motions.
16 l Factual Background
17 The parties agreed at the hearing herein there are no material disputes of tact regard
1.8 passage of SB 542 and SB 551. The Court agrees and finds. with respect to the passage u
19 and SB 551, the following facts.
20 Article 4. Section 18(2) of the Nevada Constitution is the result or a ballot initiath a w r o Lai
21 by Nevada voters during the 1994 and 1996 general elections and provides, in pertinent part:

..,an affirmative vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the members elected
to each House is necessary to pass a bill or joint resoiution which creates.
2.) generates. or increases any public revenue in any form. including but not
limited to taxes. .fees. assessments and rates. or changes in the computation
24 bases for taxes. fees, assessments and rates.
During the 2015 Legislative Session. the Legislature enacted t\ko rcnienue-genetating
measures SB 483 and S3 502. SB 483 amended NRS 360,203 to provide a computation mechanism

27 the Department of Taxation would compute the payroll tax tale fear the Modified Business
28 1 Tax (M13T) under NRS Chapter 363A and NRS Chapter 363B based upon the combined revenue from

5
 the taxes imposed by the commerce tax and the N 5 1 3 483 required a reduction in the payroll tax
rate for the MB] lithe calculation required by NRS 360.203 yielded certain results. The payroll tax
rate computation l i e d in NRS 360.203 became effective and operative on July 1, 2015. SB 502
idded a Si technology lee to every transaction for which the Department of Motor Vehicles (DM V)
urged fees. SB 502 provided the DMV technology fee was effective and operative July 1.2_ a n d

expired on June 30, 2020. Both SB 483 and SB 502 were subject to the two-thirds supermajority
provision of the Nevada Constitution and were approved by more than two-thirds of both Houses of

the Legislature in 2015.

SB 542 proposed. during the 2019 Legislative Session, to extend the expiration date o the
DMV tochnolo,2v fee to June 30.2022 and would allow the DMV to collect approximatelv 1;6.9
per 'earduring the extended period. The Legislature determined that SB 542 was not subject to the
two-thirds majority requirement. and the Senate passed the measure b a majority of all the members
elected to the Senate under Article 4. Section 18(1) of the Nevada Constitution, with, 13 Senators
voting for the bill and 8 Senators votinic a i n s t the bill. On June 5. 2019. the Governor approved SB

542.
Dur r. ,eaisiative Session. Defendant Senate NMajority leader Nicole Cam..2iziaro
sponsored awuetous amendments to 513 551. which amendments would repeal NRS 360.203 in Its
entirety. allowing the Department of Taxation to collect approximately S98.2 million during
subsequent biennium. Sections 2 and 3 o f the amendments to SB 551 eliminated the tax rate
calculation provided by NRS 360.203 to the provisions of NRS 363A. i 30 and NRS 36313.110.
respectively. Sections 37(2)401) and (2) o f S13 551 superseded, abrogated and nullified the
determinations. decisions or actions made by the Department oil axation under the computation base
pro d in NRS 360.203 and provided any such calculations under N RS 360.203 shall have no It al
Orce or effect. Section 37(2)(6) further provided the Department shall not under am cirt.iimstans circumsta
apply or use those determinations, decisions or actions as a basis. cause or reason to red
26 y i t h e taxes imposed pursuant to NRS 363A.130 and NRS 36313.110 for any fiscal year!e`ginning
27 o r after July i 2015. Section 39 of S13 551 repealed N RS 360.203. c o n t a i n e d the tax rate
28 computation for the M T . Three of the proposed amendments to SB 551 sponsored by Senate

6
 1. Majority Leader Cannizzaro stated that Sections 2. 3. 37 and 39 of the amendment to SB 551 would
require a two-thirds majority vote to pass. When SB 551 was first put to a vote in the Senate on June
3. 2019. it railed to garner the support of two-thirds of the members of the Senate. with 13 Senators
4 voting in favor and 8 voting against. S B 551. having failed to receive a two-thirds majority. was
5 declared lost by the Senate President. Senate Majority Leader Cannizzaro called a brief recess and

6 fifteen minutes later introduced a new amendment to S13 551, containing the same Sections 2, 3, 37.

7 and 39, but the printed amendment left off the two-thirds majority vote requirement and a new vote
8 was taken. The vote remained the same—13 Senators kir and 8 Senators against— but the Senate
9 President declared SB 551 passed, as amended. by a majority of all the members elected to the Senate

10 under Article 4. Section 18(1) of the Nevada Constitution. On June 12, 2019. the Governor approved
11 513 551
12 During the 2019 Legislative Session. members of the Legislative Leadership requested the

13 Legislative Counsel's opinion on whether the Constitutional two-thirds supermajority requirement

14 applies to a bill which extends until a later date— or revises or eliminates a future decrease in or
15 future expiration of existing state taxes when that future decrease or expiration is not legally operative
16 and binding yet. O n May 8. 2019, the Legislative Counsel provided the requested opinion to the
17 Legislative Leadership. The Legislative Counsel's opinion stated that l i l t is toe opinion of this office

18 that 'Nevada's two-thirds majority requirement does not apply to a bill which extends until idter

19 date—or revises or eliminates--a future decrease in or future expiration of existing state taxes when
20 that future decrease or expiration is not. legally operative and binding yet. because such a bill does not
21 change—but maintains—the existing computation bases currently in effect for the existing state
taxes."
Conclusions of Laiv

24 1, SB 542 and SB 551 are unconstitutional.

2s. This case is not about a political issue but is about a constitutional issue that affects all members

26 of the Legislature. Additionally. the issues before the Court are not whether funds for education or
27 technology fees for the 11)MV are appropriate or worthy causes. The Court's task is not to rule upon
28

7
 the merits or worthiness of SB 542 and SB 551. This case is about Article 4. Section 18(2) of the
Nevada Constitution and whether it applies to SB 542 and SB 551,
Article 4. Section 18(2) ' t h e Constitution was adopted by the citizens of the State of Nevada
by initiative and for a very specific reason— to make revenue-generating measures more difficult to
5 enact. T h e people's intent and the language o f the Constitutional provision are clear. T h e

6 Constitutional provision provides, in pertinent part:

7 an affirmative vote of not fewer than two-thirds of the members elected to
each House is necessary to pass a bill or joint resolution which creates,
generates, or increases any public revenue in any form. including but not
limited to taxes, fees, assessments and rates. or changes in the computation
bases for taxes, tees. assessments and rates.
10 All the language of the Constitutional provision must be given :fleet and the Court finds the
• 1 language to be clear and unambiguous. To determine a constitutional provision's meaning, a court turns
12 to the language and gives that language its plain effect. Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev, 579. 590-91. l 88 1),3,c11
13 1112. 1119-20 (2008). A court must give words their plain meaning unless doing so would violate the
• 14 spirit of the provision. McKay r. Rd o f Supervisors. 102 Nev. 644, 648.. 730 l'.2d 438, 442 (1986).
• 15 The plain meaning of the term "generates." as set forth in multiple dictionaries consulted by the
16 Court, is to "cause to exist" or "produce." 'like Court's emphasis in analyzing the Constitutional
7:3
17 provision was focused upon the plain meaning of the term "generates and the phrase "any public
18 revenue in any form,"
19 With respect to SB 542. regarding the DMV technology- fee. the hill extended the imposition
20 of this fee from June 30. 2020 to June 30. 2022. The Court finds tile purpose of 513 542 was to generate
21 public revenue for two more years at an estimated $6.9 million per year. I t is clear to the Court that
SB 542 was intended to generate public revenue to the State in the form of fees to be collected by the
23 DMV. But for the passaae of SR 542, those funds would not have been. produced; the, lust would not
24 exist. The public revenue would not otherwise exist without the passage of SB 542 and. therefor-. SB
25 542 generates public revenue in any form and should have been subject to a two-thirds majority vote.

26 SB 542. therefore, was passed unconstitutionally and is void and stricken from the law.
27 As to SR 551, NRS 360.203, passed by more than two-thirds of the 2015 Legislature, provided

28 a mechanism whereby the Department of Taxation would calculate the payroll tax rate for the M.BT.

8
 The calculated tax rate_ based on NRS 360.203. was to go into effect on July 1. 2019 and was a
reduction in tl tax rate. Sections 2, 3 and 39 of SB 551 repealed NRS 360,203 and re ated
provisions ill 363A.130 and 3638.110 concemin2 the computation of the MB'!' and. ther
deleted the co atati mechanism for the affected taxes. - deletion of this con puta s was
estimated to aencrate an additional 598.2 milli() revenue for the State of` Nevada - o m i n g
biennium. But for the repeal of NRS 360.203 and the related provisions, that public revenue would
7 not exist, Section 37 of SB 551 changed the computation base for the MBT by repealing the payroll

to rate computation made by the Department of Taxation. Therefore, 513 551 generates public

revenue in any loan by a chamze in computation base fbr a tax and should have been subject to a two-
'thirds majority vote. As a result. SB 551 was passed unconstitutionally
Because Sections 2, 3. 37. and 19 os SB 551 are the sections that generate public revenue.
Legislative -Defendants and Defendant-intervenor Legislature asked the Court to invalidate and Ai.; .,_
only those sections and sever the remaining provisions of SB 551 and, at the hearing. Plaintiffs did not
oppose that request. The Court finds that the remaining provisions of SB 551 can be severed and shall
remain in effect. See N RS 0.020: Flamingo Paradise Gaining v. Chano.s. 125 Nev. 502, 515, 217 P.3d
546, 555 (2009) ("(nder the severance doctrine. it i s o b l i g a t i o n ol ' l e judiciary to uphold the
17 constitutionality legislative enactments where it is possible to strike only- the .uneonstitutional
portions.'") (quoting Rogers v. Keller. 117 Nev, 169. 177, 18 P.3d 1034. 1039 (2001))) Therefore,
Sections 2.3.37_ and 39 of SB 551 are void and are stricken from the law, but the re mining
CD 20 of S8 551 can be severed and shah remain in effect.
21 While there is a concept of legislative deference, that deference does not exist to violate the
clear meaning of the Constitution of the State of Nevada. The Court's priinary task is to ascertain the
intent of those who enacted the Constitutional provision and adopt an interpretation that best capuu

24 oblective. Nevada Alining Ass'17V. Erdoes, 117 Nev. 531. 538 n. 14.26 P,36 753. 757 n. 14 t: )001
1.1eK.ay v. Bd. o f Supervisors. 102 Nev. 644. 648. 730 P.26 438. 441 (1986). Tine

26 ireme Court clearly stated: " A simple majority is necessary to approve the budget and cietcrro

27 ced for raising revenue. A two-thirds supermajority is needed to determine what specific changes

28
 would be made to the existing tax structure to increase revenue." See Guinn v. Leg. o Nevada. 1.
Nev. 460. 472, 76 P.3d 22. 30 (2003).
The Court does not put much weight in or credence to the operative versuseffective
argument of the Defendants. That argument became moot when SB 542 and SB 551 .vent into ci

, and generated public revenue that came into existence from the ties or taxes or changes in

6 computation. bases for the fees or taxes.

7 Consequently, the Court concludes that SB 542 a o n s 2. 3, 37. and 39 of SB 551 arc
8 unconstitutional in violation of Article 4, Section 18(2) of the Nevada Constitution, but the remaining
provisions of SB 551 call be severed and shall remain in effect,
2. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorney's fees as spacial damages.
As a general rule. 'Nevada adheres to the American Rule that attorneyi SI fees may onl h e
awarded when authorized by statute, rule. or agreement." Pardee Homes of Nev. r. WoUram. 135 Nev.
173. 177. 444 1).3d 423. 426 (2019). But the Nevada Supreme Court has "recognized exceptions to
this general rule; one such exception is for attornes'['sj fees as special damages," I d
lit actions for declaratory or injunctive relief. a party may plead and recover attorney's lees k.is
special damages "when the actions were necessitated by the opposing party's bad faith col

Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates Owners Ass 1 1 7 Nev. 948, 958.3'; P.3d 964.970
clisapp-ored on oilier grounds by Horgan v. Felton. 123 Nev. 1 7 0 P.3ci 982 (2007). and Pr:it'd:cc
Homes of Nee, r, filotfrain. 135 Nev. 173. 444 P.3d 423 (2019).
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorney's fees as speciai
21 damages because there was not bad faith in regard to this matter. The Court further concludes that as
to an award of attorney's fees and costs, the individual Executive and 1.egislative Defendants should
lac dismissed. and -Defendant-Intervenor Legislature cannot be asse sect attorney's fees and costs

24 pursuant to NRS 218F.720. notwithstanding Plai»tiffs' claim that NRS 218F.720 !Nese.
unconstitutional infringement upon the judiciary. The Court also concludes that Mon s ee
not appropriate nder NRS 18.010(2)(b) because there was not bad faith in regard to this mutter.
27 Howev r. the Court is bothered by the fact the Plaintiff Senators had to bring this action

28 order to bring this matter to the Court's attention and to enforce the Constitutional provision hindi

10
 on every member of the Legislature. Therefore, Plaintiffs may take appropriate actions to request an
award of post judgment attorney's fees and costs, if they desire, and the parties, in that event, may brief

the Court further on the issue of whether the Court can grant to Plaintiffs an award of postjudgment
4 attorney's fees and costs, payable by the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and/or the Nevada

Department of 'Taxation.
6 Order and a t Judgment
7 Good cause appearing therefor.
8 1. I T IS HEREBY ORDERED T H AT summary judgment is granted in favor of the
9 Plaintiffs' on their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and violation o f the taxpayers'

10 constitutional rights. The Court declares that: (1) SB 542 and SB 551 are bills that create. generate or
11 increase public revenue by lees or taxes or changes in the computation bases for fees or taxes: (2)
12 Article 4. Section 18(2) of the Nevada Constitution required that two-thirds of the Senate vote to pass
13 both SB 542 and SB 551: (3) the votes of the eight Plaintiff Senators should he given effect; and (4)
14 SB 542 and Sections 2, 3, 37, and 39 of SB 551 must be invalidated and are void and stricken for lack
15 of supporting votes of two-thirds of the members of the Senate in the 80° (2019) Legislative Session,
16 but the remaining provisions of SB 551 can be severed and shall remain in effect,
17 2. I T IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendant Nevada Department of Motor
18 Vehicles and Defendant Nevada Department of Taxation are immediately enjoined and restrained
19 from collecting and enforcing the unconstitutional fees and taxes enacted by SB 542 and Sections 2.
20 3.37. and 39 of SB 551. respectively. and that all fee payers and taxpayers from whom such fees and
21 taxes have already been collected are entitled to an immediate refund thereof with interest at the legal
2? rate of interest from the date collected.
•)3 3. I T IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover
24 attorney's fees as special damages for bringina their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and
25 summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants on any claims to recover attorney's fees as special

26 damages.

28

11
 4. I T IS HEREBY FURTHER ORD E F T SAT the individual Executive and Legislative

Defendants, the Honorable Nicole Cannizzaro. the Honorable Kate Marshall. the I lonorable Claire J,
Clift, and the Honorabl, Steve Sisolak, arc dismissed from this action,
1" S HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED T H AT, except as otherwise provided i t
paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Order. the Counter-Motion for Summary judgment of the Legisiatrve

6 Defendants and. Defendant-Intervenor I ,egislature, and the Executive Defendants' Joinder thereto. are

7 denied,
8 6. I T IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Executive Defendants' Motion to
r:i
9 smiss is denied
10 7. I T IS HEREBY FURTHER D E R E ] ) THAT a final! udgment is entered t h i s act
1 adjudicating all the eianns of all the parties as set forth in this Order.
S. I T IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs may take appropriate. actions
13 o request an award of postjudgment attorney's fees and costs. if they desire, and the parties. in that
14 event, may brief the Coon r on the issue of whether the Court can grant to Plaintiffs an award
1 of postjudgment attorney's fees and costs. payable by the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles
16 ndior the Nevada Department of Taxation.
17 9. I S HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED III. IPlaintiffs ation s 1 i son MacKenzie.

18 Ltd., will serve a notice of entry of this Order on all other parties and rile proof ot such service I t s
19 7days after the Court sends this Order to said attorneys.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
DA:IED this r —day 020.

DLSTR.ICT T Y )
25
26 -)n -fed h\:
27 LISON MacKENZIE, LTD.
402 North Division Street
28 Carson City. NV 89703

12
 Telephone: (775) 687-0202
kpetersoniiullisonmackenzie.com
Email: nownsena;allisonmackentie.com

1. Petercz
NN t R SON, t.
Nevada State Bar No. 366
JUSTIN l'OWNSEND, ESQ.
Nevada State Bar No. 12293
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
'7
8

1C

13
14
1

20
21
22
23

27

28

13