Another Badlands lawsuit to be appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court

The city of Las Vegas is asking the Nevada Supreme Court to review one of four cases related to its legal battle with the would-be developer of the defunct Badlands golf course.

Council members on Wednesday voted 5 to 2 to ratify a petition to the state’s high court over District Court judgments of a little more than $80 million against the city related to a 17-acre plot of land.

Councilwomen Victoria Seaman Nancy Brune voted against the proposal.

During the meeting, EHB Cos. CEO Yohan Lowie chastised officials, “begging” them to stop delaying the legal process. He also threatened to again sue the city, but this time for “the destruction of a company over fraud and extortion.”

“You know how you put an oil fire out?” Lowie asked rhetorically. “You put a bomb on top of it and you detonate. Don’t let me do it. Please, I’m asking you, I’m begging you.”

Lowie said EHB had evidence to go after the city with what he called a “multi-billion dollar” lawsuit. He said that city attorneys are misrepresenting facts to courts and public opinion “based on false evidence, false assertion, false narrative.”

‘Dollars and cents’

City Attorney Jeff Dorocak told the council that negotiations with EHB were ongoing, but that continuing the lawsuits in tandem was part of a “strategy to reach a resolution by settlement or court action.”

“Overall, the goal of this 17-acre appeal is to help reduce or eliminate at least a portion, a portion of the risk currently facing this city,” he said. Dorocak argued that a court award of about $20 million alone in back interest in that case was a “complete misapplication” of the law.

“We believe it has resulted for a windfall or the property owners that was not intended by the law,” he said. “It is worth it for the city from a standpoint of dollars and cents to seek appeal on that issue alone.”

If the city is unsuccessful in the four cases, Dorocak said the city risks losses of taxpayer money between $450 million and $650 million.

City Manager Mike Janssen told staffers this summer that to cover costs, the city was considering not filing open positions, pausing projects and selling public land and property.

Years-long dispute

The legal battle began shortly after Lowie purchased the defunct 250-acre golf course off Alta Drive at Rampart Boulevard in 2015, where he intended to build housing. Residents of the adjacent Queensridge community came out against it.

Mayor Carolyn Goodman said she knew early on that the case would end up in court.

Judges in three cases involving different sections of the land have ruled that the city illegally “took” property by not allowing EHB to exercise its land-use entitlements and develop homes on the land.

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld a judgment of $64 million earlier this year for inverse condemnation on 35 acres of land, which the city has since paid, Dorocak said.

EHB argued in a letter to the council that city attorneys have previously admitted that the case involving the 17 acres is “factually identical” to the one involving the 35 acres and that the Supreme Court could enter a summary judgment based on previous deliberations.

Another judge awarded $141 million to EHB for 65 acres, and a case for the remaining 133 acres is moving forward, EHB attorney Jim Levitt previously said.

Dorocak said that unlike the case for the 35 acres, the city had not denied land use entitlements in the three other cases.

‘You’re taking my property’

Lowie alleges that the city conspired to not let him build on the golf course, so someone else could.

“There was never a question that this piece of property was buildable, ever,” he told the council. “You’re taking my property, and you’re going to zone it and sell it for much more, that’s your intention. I know that’s what you’re doing, we can prove it in papers; we have paper after paper; we have it, and we don’t even need discovery.”

The appeal was set to be voted on without public discussion with council’s consent agenda, but Seaman requested it be taken separately.

The mayoral candidate said the single-vote agenda was “reserved for issues simple or routine.”

“However, this matter is anything but simple or routine and deserves discussion and a clear vote on the issue,” Seaman said.

Former U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, who’s running against Seaman, said the city should focus on reaching a settlement.

“After multiple court losses, it’s clear that continued litigation is not the solution,” Berkley wrote in a statement. “It’s time to change direction and prioritize a fair resolution that serves the best interests of our community.”

Councilman Brian Knudsen said that he, too, has been a proponent of a settlement.

“If both parties want to settle, the price tag that we’ve been given is so astronomical that it would cripple the city,” Knudsen said. “So our options are, cripple the city, which is what settlement is, that’s what’s been advocated for in the newspapers, or do everything we can in our power to protect and save the city that I love.”

Lowie said EHB had sent the city eight offers, and hadn’t received a response. He maintained Wednesday that he was still was open for a resolution outside of court.

Councilman Cedric Crear argued that land use entitlements weren’t guaranteed, adding that the City Council regularly approves or denies such permits.

“In this particular case, the city seems to be dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t,” Crear said. “Unfortunately, sometimes bad rulings happen to good cities, and this is one of those cases where that seems to be the case.”

EHB noted that city attorneys filed a notice of appeal before the council vote, arguing that the city violated the state’s open meeting law.

Dorocak said that with a yes vote, council members were ratifying the motion to appeal, and that the city could’ve withdrawn it had the vote gone the other way.

The city attorney said the city would keep negotiating a possible settlement.

“We, the city manager and I will sit down with the attorney for the property owner every day if we have to to get to a reasonable and responsible settlement,” Dorocak said.

Lowie said that if needed, he would pursue the litigation all the way.

“If you want to fight the rest of it in court, we’ll fight in court,” he said. “(Even) if we have to go to the United States Supreme Court.”

Contact Ricardo Torres-Cortez at rtorres@reviewjournal.com.