Beattie factors in Nevada

2025In granting an award of attorney fees pursuant to NRCP 68, a district court must consider the Beattie factors, which include (1) whether the plaintiff brought the claim in good faith, (2) "whether the defendant['s] offer of judgement was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount," (3) "whether the plaintiff s decision to reject the offer . . . was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith," and (4) whether the attorney fees requested "are reasonable and justified in amount." 99 Nev. at 588-89 , 668 P.2d at 274 .

2025In granting an award of attorney fees pursuant to NRCP 68, a district court must consider the Beattie factors, which include (1) whether the plaintiff brought the claim in good faith, (2) "whether the defendant['s] offer of judgement was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount," (3) "whether the plaintiff s decision to reject the offer . . . was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith," and (4) whether the attorney fees requested "are reasonable and justified in amount." 99 Nev. at 588-89 , 668 P.2d at 274 .

2025Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233 , 252 n.16, 955 P.2d 661 , 673 n.16 (1998), and "[ilf the record clearly reflects that the district court properly considered the Beattie factors, we will defer to its discretion," Wynn u.

2025Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233 , 252 n.16, 955 P.2d 661 , 673 n.16 (1998), and "[ilf the record clearly reflects that the district court properly considered the Beattie factors, we will defer to its discretion," Wynn u.

2024The district court has discretion in weighing the Beattie factors and need not "make explicit findings as to all of the factors where support for an implicit ruling regarding one or more of the factors is clear on the record." Schwartz v. Est. of Greenspun, 110 Nev. 1042, 1049 , 881 P.2d 638, 642-43 (1994).

2024The district court has discretion in weighing the Beattie factors and need not "make explicit findings as to all of the factors where support for an implicit ruling regarding one or more of the factors is clear on the record." Schwartz v. Est. of Greenspun, 110 Nev. 1042, 1049 , 881 P.2d 638, 642-43 (1994).

2015The district court's ruling will be upheld unless "the trial court's exercise of discretion [in evaluating the Beattie factors] is arbitrary or capricious." Schouweiler v. Yancey Co., 101 Nev. 827, 833 , 712 P.2d 786, 790 (1985).

2015The district court's ruling will be upheld unless "the trial court's exercise of discretion [in evaluating the Beattie factors] is arbitrary or capricious." Schouweiler v. Yancey Co., 101 Nev. 827, 833 , 712 P.2d 786, 790 (1985).

2021NRCP 68 are fact intensive," and "5U the record clearly reflects that the district court properly considered the Beattie factors, we will defer to its discretion." Wynn v. Smith, 117 Nev. 6, 13, 16 P.3d 424, 428-29 (2001). "[T]he district court's failure to make explicit findings is not a per se abuse of discretion." Id. at 13, 16 P.3d at 428.

2021NRCP 68 are fact intensive," and "5U the record clearly reflects that the district court properly considered the Beattie factors, we will defer to its discretion." Wynn v. Smith, 117 Nev. 6, 13, 16 P.3d 424, 428-29 (2001). "[T]he district court's failure to make explicit findings is not a per se abuse of discretion." Id. at 13, 16 P.3d at 428.

2015See LaForge, 116 Nev. at 423, 997 P.2d at 136 ; see also AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589 , 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) ("While review for abuse of discretion is ordinarily deferential, deference is not owed to legal error.").

2015See LaForge, 116 Nev. at 423, 997 P.2d at 136 ; see also AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589 , 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) ("While review for abuse of discretion is ordinarily deferential, deference is not owed to legal error.").

2015See LaForge, 116 Nev. at 423, 997 P.2d at 136 ; see also AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589 , 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) ("While review for abuse of discretion is ordinarily deferential, deference is not owed to legal error.").

2015See LaForge, 116 Nev. at 423, 997 P.2d at 136 ; see also AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589 , 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) ("While review for abuse of discretion is ordinarily deferential, deference is not owed to legal error.").

2000Where the district court properly considers these Beattie factors, the award of attorney’s fees is discretionary and “will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse.” Bidart v. American Title, 103 Nev. 175, 179 , 734 P.2d 732, 735 (1987) (citing Trustees, 101 Nev. at 746 , 710 P.2d at 1382 ).

2000Where the district court properly considers these Beattie factors, the award of attorney’s fees is discretionary and “will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse.” Bidart v. American Title, 103 Nev. 175, 179 , 734 P.2d 732, 735 (1987) (citing Trustees, 101 Nev. at 746 , 710 P.2d at 1382 ).

2005They reward a party who makes a reasonable offer and punish the party who refuses to accept such an offer.” (citing Muije v. A North Las Vegas Cab Co., 106 Nev. 664, 667 , 799 P.2d 559, 561 (1990))). 24 Yada, 112 Nev. at 258 , 913 P.2d at 1263 (“[A] single plaintiffs offer of judgment . . . not apportioned among multiple defendants . . . does not serve to encourage settlement since the individual defendants are unable to determine their share of a joint offer and make a meaningful choice between accepting the offer or continuing to litigate.”). 25 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 111 Nev. at 322-23 , 8

2005They reward a party who makes a reasonable offer and punish the party who refuses to accept such an offer.” (citing Muije v. A North Las Vegas Cab Co., 106 Nev. 664, 667 , 799 P.2d 559, 561 (1990))). 24 Yada, 112 Nev. at 258 , 913 P.2d at 1263 (“[A] single plaintiffs offer of judgment . . . not apportioned among multiple defendants . . . does not serve to encourage settlement since the individual defendants are unable to determine their share of a joint offer and make a meaningful choice between accepting the offer or continuing to litigate.”). 25 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 111 Nev. at 322-23 , 8

2021See Wynn, 117 Nev. at 13, 16 P.3d at 428-29 ("If the record clearly reflects that the district court properly considered the Beattie factors, we will defer to its discretion."); cf. Willard v. Berry-Hinckley Indus., 136 Nev. 467, 471, 469 P.3d 176, 180 (2020) (holding that district courts must issue explicit and detailed findings for NRCP 60(b)(1) determinations).

2021See Wynn, 117 Nev. at 13, 16 P.3d at 428-29 ("If the record clearly reflects that the district court properly considered the Beattie factors, we will defer to its discretion."); cf. Willard v. Berry-Hinckley Indus., 136 Nev. 467, 471, 469 P.3d 176, 180 (2020) (holding that district courts must issue explicit and detailed findings for NRCP 60(b)(1) determinations).

2021See State Drywall, Inc. v. Rhodes Design & Dev., 122 Nev. 111, 119 n.18, 127 P.3d 1082, 1088 n.18 (2006) (holding the district court did not properly COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA io) 19473 11 consider the Beattie factors where the record did not reflect "what, if any, analysis was made and recognizing that the record must reflect this analysis for the decision to be upheld).

2021See State Drywall, Inc. v. Rhodes Design & Dev., 122 Nev. 111, 119 n.18, 127 P.3d 1082, 1088 n.18 (2006) (holding the district court did not properly COURT OF APPEALS OF NEVADA io) 19473 11 consider the Beattie factors where the record did not reflect "what, if any, analysis was made and recognizing that the record must reflect this analysis for the decision to be upheld).

2014Horton's attorney fees by conducting a Beattie analysis and concluding 4See also Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 266, 269-76 (D.

2014Horton's attorney fees by conducting a Beattie analysis and concluding 4See also Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 266, 269-76 (D.

2025Op. 66 , 557 P.3d 965, 975-76 (2024) (affirming a district court's award of attorney fees where the Beattie factors were evenly split).

2025Op. 66 , 557 P.3d 965, 975-76 (2024) (affirming a district court's award of attorney fees where the Beattie factors were evenly split).

2022Peppermill, 134 Nev at 245, 416 P.3d at 258 .

2022Peppermill, 134 Nev at 245, 416 P.3d at 258 .

2021See Estate of Miller, 125 Nev. at 554 , 216 P.3d at 243 (holding that NRCP 68 applies to the final judgment after appeal).

2021See Estate of Miller, 125 Nev. at 554 , 216 P.3d at 243 (holding that NRCP 68 applies to the final judgment after appeal).

2013Uniroyal Goodrich Tire v. Mercer, 111 Nev. 318, 324 , 890 P.2d 785, 789 (1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in RTTC Commn'ns, LLC v. Saratoga Flier, Inc., 121 Nev. 34 , 41- 42, 110 P.3d 24, 29 (2005).

2013Uniroyal Goodrich Tire v. Mercer, 111 Nev. 318, 324 , 890 P.2d 785, 789 (1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in RTTC Commn'ns, LLC v. Saratoga Flier, Inc., 121 Nev. 34 , 41- 42, 110 P.3d 24, 29 (2005).

2005They reward a party who makes a reasonable offer and punish the party who refuses to accept such an offer.” (citing Muije v. A North Las Vegas Cab Co., 106 Nev. 664, 667 , 799 P.2d 559, 561 (1990))). 24 Yada, 112 Nev. at 258 , 913 P.2d at 1263 (“[A] single plaintiffs offer of judgment . . . not apportioned among multiple defendants . . . does not serve to encourage settlement since the individual defendants are unable to determine their share of a joint offer and make a meaningful choice between accepting the offer or continuing to litigate.”). 25 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 111 Nev. at 322-23 , 8

2005They reward a party who makes a reasonable offer and punish the party who refuses to accept such an offer.” (citing Muije v. A North Las Vegas Cab Co., 106 Nev. 664, 667 , 799 P.2d 559, 561 (1990))). 24 Yada, 112 Nev. at 258 , 913 P.2d at 1263 (“[A] single plaintiffs offer of judgment . . . not apportioned among multiple defendants . . . does not serve to encourage settlement since the individual defendants are unable to determine their share of a joint offer and make a meaningful choice between accepting the offer or continuing to litigate.”). 25 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 111 Nev. at 322-23 , 8

2005They reward a party who makes a reasonable offer and punish the party who refuses to accept such an offer.” (citing Muije v. A North Las Vegas Cab Co., 106 Nev. 664, 667 , 799 P.2d 559, 561 (1990))). 24 Yada, 112 Nev. at 258 , 913 P.2d at 1263 (“[A] single plaintiffs offer of judgment . . . not apportioned among multiple defendants . . . does not serve to encourage settlement since the individual defendants are unable to determine their share of a joint offer and make a meaningful choice between accepting the offer or continuing to litigate.”). 25 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 111 Nev. at 322-23 , 8

2005They reward a party who makes a reasonable offer and punish the party who refuses to accept such an offer.” (citing Muije v. A North Las Vegas Cab Co., 106 Nev. 664, 667 , 799 P.2d 559, 561 (1990))). 24 Yada, 112 Nev. at 258 , 913 P.2d at 1263 (“[A] single plaintiffs offer of judgment . . . not apportioned among multiple defendants . . . does not serve to encourage settlement since the individual defendants are unable to determine their share of a joint offer and make a meaningful choice between accepting the offer or continuing to litigate.”). 25 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 111 Nev. at 322-23 , 8