Joint Complainants and the Affidavit-of-Merit Requirement under NRS 11.258: Commentary on Bagelmania Holdings, LLC v. RDH Interests, Inc.

I. Introduction

The Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in Bagelmania Holdings, LLC v. RDH Interests, Inc., 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 62 (Dec. 4, 2025), addresses a recurring and highly practical issue in nonresidential construction defect litigation: whether multiple plaintiffs who file a single joint complaint, assert the same claims arising from the same allegedly defective construction, and are represented by the same attorney must each submit a separate affidavit of merit and expert report under NRS 11.258.

The Court holds that, under those circumstances, a single attorney affidavit and a single set of expert reports are sufficient to satisfy NRS 11.258. The decision corrects what the district court perceived as a strict, plaintiff-by-plaintiff requirement derived from Otak Nevada, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 127 Nev. 593, 260 P.3d 408 (2011), and reorients the analysis back to the text and purpose of the statute.

The opinion also clarifies:

• How substantial compliance with affidavit-of-merit requirements is assessed, particularly when an in-house legal department (here, “the Siegel Group”) interacts with experts but a specific attorney signs the affidavit.
• The limited gatekeeping function of NRS 11.258 (screening for frivolous claims) as opposed to deciding merits questions such as standing or third-party beneficiary status.
• The permissibility and timing of raising NRS 11.258 noncompliance via an NRCP 12(c) motion.
• The jurisdictional consequence that a district court loses authority to enter further merits orders once it has entered a final judgment of dismissal.

Because affidavit-of-merit statutes can be outcome-determinative at the threshold pleading stage, this case carries significant implications for construction defect litigants, their counsel, and design professionals in Nevada.

II. Summary of the Opinion

A. Parties and Project Background

Appellant Bagelmania Holdings, LLC (“Bagelmania”) operates a bakery and deli. It leases its restaurant premises from appellant Somerset Property, LLC (“Somerset”). The two entities collaborated to renovate a building for the Bagelmania restaurant in Las Vegas.

For that renovation:

• Respondent RDH Interests, Inc. (“RDH”), a Texas corporation, was retained as the architect.
• Respondent JEM Associates West, Inc. (“JEM”), a Nevada corporation, served as the contractor to design the kitchen.
• Respondent Turpin & Rattan Engineering, Inc. (“TRE”), a California corporation, was subcontracted to provide mechanical engineering services for the HVAC system.

Bagelmania and Somerset claimed the renovation work was defective and brought suit against various entities, including RDH, JEM, and TRE.

B. Procedural History

NRS 11.258 requires, in actions involving nonresidential construction defects, that the attorney for the complainant file an affidavit of merit and attach an expert report at the time the first pleading is served. Bagelmania and Somerset initially filed three prior actions that were each dismissed without prejudice for noncompliance with NRS 11.258.

They then filed a new action with a joint complaint, again naming RDH, JEM, and TRE, and asserting:

• Breach of contract
• Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
• Declaratory relief
• As to TRE, breach of the implied covenant of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose
• In the alternative, negligence against all three defendants

Both Bagelmania and Somerset were represented by the same attorney, Michael Maupin, assistant general counsel for the Siegel Group (a commercial real estate firm). Maupin filed:

• A single affidavit of merit, which stated that “the Siegel Group” had consulted:
  • Licensed architect Brian Grill of J.S. Held LLC regarding the design work of RDH and JEM; and
  • Mechanical engineering expert Patrick Stremel of Southwest Consulting Group, Inc. regarding TRE and the HVAC design.
• Expert reports and résumés of both Grill and Stremel, concluding there were several flaws in the design and construction of the Bagelmania restaurant and that there was a reasonable basis for filing the action.

RDH, JEM, and TRE answered the complaint and pleaded noncompliance with NRS 11.258 as an affirmative defense. Shortly after the pleadings closed, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under NRCP 12(c), arguing:

1. Each plaintiff (Bagelmania and Somerset) was required to file its “own” attorney affidavit and expert report, and;
2. The affidavit and expert reports that had been filed did not satisfy NRS 11.258.

Relying on Otak, the district court concluded that each complainant must file and serve its own affidavit and expert report “particularized to the complainant’s own claims,” and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, citing the plaintiffs’ repeated failures in prior actions. It then:

• Denied a motion to reconsider;
• Later granted partial summary judgment to TRE (after the dismissal); and
• Awarded RDH attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

Bagelmania and Somerset appealed from (1) the order of dismissal (Docket No. 86531) and (2) the post-judgment award of fees, costs, and interest (Docket No. 87901). The appeals were consolidated.

C. Holdings

The Nevada Supreme Court (Cadish, J., for a unanimous panel of Cadish, Pickering, and Lee, JJ.) held:

1. Single Affidavit and Expert Reports Satisfied NRS 11.258 When multiple plaintiffs:
   • file a joint complaint,
   • assert identical claims arising from the same allegedly defective construction, and
   • are represented by the same attorney,
   one affidavit of merit and one set of expert reports suffice to comply with NRS 11.258. Separate affidavits and expert reports are “unnecessary” in these circumstances.
2. Maupin’s Affidavit Substantially Complied with NRS 11.258(1) Although the affidavit repeatedly stated that “the Siegel Group” consulted with the experts and reviewed the case, Maupin:
   • Signed the affidavit as an attorney for the Siegel Group;
   • Stated “I have reviewed the facts of the case”; and
   • Was the addressee of the experts’ reports and was physically present during one expert’s inspection.
   This was sufficient to show that “the attorney” had performed the required consultation and review within the meaning of NRS 11.258(1)(a)–(d).
3. The Expert Reports Complied with NRS 11.258(3) The experts’ reports:
   • Contained their résumés;
   • Identified their experience in relevant disciplines;
   • Outlined the materials they reviewed;
   • Set out conclusions and reasoning about design and construction flaws; and
   • Stated there was a reasonable basis for filing the action.
   They were not required to:
   • Specifically name which plaintiff they “supported,” or
   • Analyze the plaintiffs’ legal standing, contractual relationships, or third-party beneficiary status.
4. No Waiver of the NRS 11.258 Defense Defendants preserved the NRS 11.258 defense by pleading it affirmatively in their answers and then moving for judgment on the pleadings under NRCP 12(c). Neither NRS 11.259 nor the rules of civil procedure required an earlier motion.
5. Distinguishing Otak Otak requires each party who files a separate complaint to submit its own affidavit and expert report tailored to its claims. It does not require duplicative affidavits when:
   • Co-plaintiffs file a single joint complaint;
   • Are represented by the same lawyer; and
   • Assert identical claims based on the same design and construction work.
6. Jurisdictional Error: Summary Judgment Order Void Because the district court had already entered a final judgment of dismissal, it lacked jurisdiction to later grant partial summary judgment for TRE. That order was void and was vacated, as was the fee/cost/interest award.
7. Disposition The Court:
   • Reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings (Docket No. 86531); and
   • Vacated the post-judgment fee, cost, and interest award (and the partial summary judgment for TRE) (Docket No. 87901).

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Statutory Framework: NRS 11.258 and NRS 11.259

NRS 11.258 sets out affidavit-of-merit and expert-report requirements for “an action involving nonresidential construction.” The key provisions relevant here are:

• NRS 11.258(1) – The attorney for the complainant must file an affidavit with the court concurrently with service of the first pleading. The affidavit must state that the attorney:
  1. Has reviewed the facts of the case;
  2. Has consulted with an expert;
  3. Reasonably believes the expert is knowledgeable in the relevant discipline; and
  4. Has concluded, based on review and consultation, that the action has a reasonable basis in law and fact.
• NRS 11.258(3) – The attorney must attach an expert report that includes:
  1. The expert’s résumé;
  2. A statement about the expert’s experience in the relevant discipline;
  3. A copy of each nonprivileged document the expert reviewed;
  4. The expert’s conclusion and supporting reasoning; and
  5. A statement that the expert has concluded there is a reasonable basis for filing the action.
• NRS 11.259 – If the attorney fails to file the affidavit and report “as required,” the district court “shall dismiss” the action.

These provisions are designed as gatekeeping mechanisms to prevent frivolous lawsuits against design professionals and contractors, similar in purpose to Nevada’s medical-malpractice affidavit requirement under NRS 41A.071. The legislative history, cited by the Court, emphasizes:

“[NRS 11.258] was intended ‘to preclude people from being sucked into a lawsuit and then having to pay a nuisance value to get out,’ [but] the statute is not meant ‘to preclude legitimate claims against design professionals’ or prevent access to the courts.”

In Bagelmania, the dispute centered on how precisely those requirements must be satisfied—particularly when multiple plaintiffs proceed together.

B. The Court’s Construction of NRS 11.258 in Bagelmania

1. One Affidavit and One Set of Reports for Joint Complainants

The core statutory interpretation question was whether the phrase “the attorney for the complainant shall file an affidavit” in NRS 11.258(1) requires:

• A separate affidavit-and-report package for each named plaintiff, or
• Only that the attorney signing the complaint certify that the action (as pled) has a reasonable basis, even if there are multiple co-plaintiffs.

The Court emphasized the plain language and structure of the statute:

• The language speaks in terms of “the attorney for the complainant” and “an action,” rather than explicitly requiring “one affidavit per plaintiff.”
• Here, a single complaint was filed on behalf of Bagelmania and Somerset, both represented by Maupin, asserting the same claims and theories against the same defendants, based on the same allegedly defective renovation project.

Under these circumstances, the Court held:

“An attorney need not verify the merit of each complainant’s claims in separate affidavits based on the complainants’ distinct relationships with each design professional where the complainants (1) file a joint complaint, (2) assert identical claims arising out of the same allegedly defective design work, and (3) are represented by the same attorney.”

Requiring separate affidavits in these circumstances, the Court explained, would:

• Impose a procedural hurdle not grounded in the statutory text;
• Serve no meaningful gatekeeping function, since the same expert review of the same defects would simply be duplicated in multiple parallel documents; and
• Conflict with legislative intent not to impede legitimate claims or block access to the courts.

Thus, the Court adopts a functional reading of NRS 11.258: what matters is that the action (as pleaded) has been screened by counsel and supported by appropriate expert review, not that a specific affidavit be produced for each client’s name.

2. Substantial Compliance and the Role of In-House Counsel

The defendants argued that Maupin’s affidavit was defective because it repeatedly referred to “the Siegel Group” (a business entity) as the actor who:

• Reviewed the facts of the case;
• Consulted with experts; and
• Concluded the action had a reasonable basis in law and fact.

NRS 11.258(1) requires that “the attorney” perform these functions. The respondents contended that this distinction—between an entity and an individual attorney—was fatal.

The Court rejected this hypertechnical reading and held that the affidavit substantially complied with the statute. The key facts:

• Maupin was assistant general counsel to the Siegel Group—effectively a lawyer within a law firm-like structure.
• The affidavit expressly stated “I have reviewed the facts of the case as articulated in the Complaint.”
• Maupin signed the affidavit as an attorney for the Siegel Group.
• The expert reports were addressed to Maupin, who personally participated in at least one inspection.

The Court analogized to Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas LLC, 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, 550 P.3d 825 (2024), where it held that substantial compliance with the medical malpractice affidavit statute (NRS 41A.071) was sufficient when the record clearly demonstrated that an expert opinion was obtained before filing the complaint, even though the technical filing requirements were not perfectly followed.

Here, the Court reasoned that:

• The purpose of NRS 11.258 is to ensure the case is vetted by a qualified expert and by counsel before suit is filed;
• The facts showed that this purpose was served; and
• The references to “the Siegel Group” did not undermine the reality that Maupin, an attorney, conducted the review and consultations.

Accordingly, the Court held that the affidavit satisfied NRS 11.258(1)(a)–(d) when interpreted sensibly and in light of its purpose.

3. Scope and Content of Expert Reports under NRS 11.258(3)

Defendants also challenged the expert reports as insufficient because:

• They did not specify by name which plaintiff (Bagelmania or Somerset) they “supported”; and
• They did not analyze the distinct contractual relationships or legal theories under which each plaintiff sought relief.

The Court rejected this argument, explaining that NRS 11.258(3) focuses on technical and factual issues within the expert’s field, not on:

• Legal standing;
• Third-party beneficiary status;
• The legal sufficiency of individual contract or tort theories.

The statute requires the expert to:

• Demonstrate credentials and experience;
• Identify what was reviewed;
• Explain conclusions and reasoning about alleged construction or design defects; and
• Confirm that there is a reasonable basis to file the action.

Grill and Stremel did precisely that: they identified multiple flaws in the design and HVAC systems at the Bagelmania restaurant and opined that the claims had merit. As the Court put it, an “analysis of the legal relationships between the complainants and [the defendants] goes beyond the scope of the statute’s substantive requirements.”

This draws a clear line: affidavit-of-merit statutes are not mini-summary-judgment proceedings. They do not require experts to pre-adjudicate contractual privity, standing, or other legal merits issues.

C. Role of Precedent

1. Otak Nevada, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court

The district court viewed Otak as controlling and interpreted it to require that “each complainant” must “file and serve its own affidavit of merit and expert report particularized to the complainant’s own claims.”

In Otak:

• General contractor Pacificap Construction Services (PCS) sued design architect Otak Nevada in a third-party complaint, initially without an affidavit and expert report, later attempting to cure by amendment.
• Other contractors sought to assert cross-claims against Otak and proposed to “rely” on PCS’s expert report rather than submitting their own.
• The Court held:
  • An initial pleading served without an affidavit and expert report required by NRS 11.258 is void ab initio and cannot be cured by amendment; and
  • “Each party that files a separate complaint for nonresidential construction malpractice must file its own expert report and attorney affidavit … particularized to that party’s claims.”

Crucially, in Otak:

• Each contractor was represented by different counsel.
• They filed separate complaints or cross-claims, not a unified joint complaint.
• The claims were for indemnity and contribution based on each contractor’s particular role and work, which varied from party to party.

In Bagelmania, the Court emphasizes those differences and confines Otak to its facts:

“Unlike the contractors in Otak who (1) filed individual complaints … (2) were each represented by different counsel, and (3) asserted separate claims for indemnity and contribution based on the specific work each contractor performed, Bagelmania and Somerset filed a joint complaint represented by the same attorney, asserting identical claims arising out of the same alleged facts … Thus, Bagelmania and Somerset did not need separate affidavits and expert reports…”

Thus, Otak still stands for:

• The void ab initio rule for pleadings filed without any affidavit or expert report;
• The requirement that each separate complaining party (in a separate pleading) cannot piggyback on another party’s expert report.

But it does not mean that co-plaintiffs in a joint complaint, asserting identical claims with a common counsel, must duplicate affidavits and reports.

2. Reif v. Aries Consultants, Inc.

The Court acknowledges that Otak was “abrogated on other grounds” by Reif v. Aries Consultants, Inc., 135 Nev. 389, 449 P.3d 1253 (2019). While the opinion does not elaborate on the specific abrogation, it signals that:

• Not all of Otak’s reasoning remains controlling, but
• Its core construction of NRS 11.258 regarding void pleadings and party-specific affidavits still informs current law where consistent with Reif.

The key point for Bagelmania is that even taking Otak at face value, the case did not compel the district court’s conclusion about multiple affidavits within a single, joint pleading.

3. Limprasert and Baxter: Affidavit-of-Merit as a Gatekeeping Device

The Court draws on two medical malpractice cases interpreting NRS 41A.071:

• Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital, 550 P.3d 825 (2024) – The Court held that dismissal was improper where the record showed an expert opinion had been obtained before filing, even though the technical filing requirements were not perfectly met. This established that substantial compliance can satisfy a gatekeeping statute when its underlying purpose has been fulfilled.
• Baxter v. Dignity Health, 131 Nev. 759, 357 P.3d 927 (2015) – The Court described NRS 41A.071 as governing only the “threshold requirements for initial pleadings” and emphasized that it is “not the ultimate trial” of the professional negligence claims.

By invoking these cases, the Court:

• Aligns NRS 11.258’s interpretation with the functional, non-hypertechnical approach taken for NRS 41A.071.
• Reiterates that affidavit-of-merit statutes are meant to screen for merit, not adjudicate legal elements such as standing or third-party beneficiary status.

4. Sadler and NRCP 12(c): Standard of Review and Procedure

The Court reviews the NRCP 12(c) dismissal de novo, citing Sadler v. PacifiCare of Nev., 130 Nev. 990, 340 P.3d 1264 (2014). It confirms that:

• Judgment on the pleadings is available “after the pleadings are closed” but early enough not to delay trial.
• Failure to state a claim can be raised through such a motion under NRCP 12(h)(2)(B).

This is relevant to the Court’s rejection of any waiver argument regarding NRS 11.258.

5. SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial District Court: Jurisdiction After Final Judgment

Finally, the Court cites SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial District Court, 123 Nev. 608, 173 P.3d 715 (2007), to hold that:

“Once a district court enters final judgment, the district court lacks jurisdiction to reopen the case absent a proper and timely motion under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.”

Because the district court had already entered a final dismissal with prejudice, its subsequent partial summary judgment in favor of TRE was void. This underscores the basic jurisdictional principle that a court cannot continue to issue merits rulings after it has terminated the case, absent proper post-judgment motions or appellate reversal.

D. Distinguishing Otak: “Each Party” Versus “Joint Complainants”

The interpretive pivot of the case lies in how the Court distinguishes the phrase:

“Each party that files a separate complaint … must file its own expert report and attorney affidavit.”

The district court extrapolated this to require that each named plaintiff, even within a single complaint and represented by one lawyer, must have its own unique affidavit and expert report. The Supreme Court disagreed, essentially reading the phrase in context:

• In Otak, each “party” was functionally a separate litigant with its own pleading, counsel, and distinct claims.
• In Bagelmania, Bagelmania and Somerset were joint complainants in a single pleading, aligned in interest, represented by the same counsel, and asserting identical claims based on the same design work.

By emphasizing these factual and procedural distinctions, the Court prevents Otak from being weaponized as a rigid technical trap and restores a common-sense reading of NRS 11.258:

• One complaint + one set of claims + one lawyer + one project = one affidavit and set of expert reports are enough.
• Multiple, separate pleadings or cross-claims, by different parties with different roles and counsel, each require their own supporting affidavit and expert report.

E. Timing and Waiver: Raising NRS 11.258 via NRCP 12(c)

Bagelmania and Somerset argued that defendants waived the NRS 11.258 defense by waiting to assert it in an NRCP 12(c) motion instead of immediately attacking the complaint. The Court squarely rejected this.

Key points:

• Defendants specifically pleaded “noncompliance with NRS 11.258” as an affirmative defense in their answers.
• They moved for judgment on the pleadings shortly after the last answer was filed—i.e., once the pleadings were closed, as NRCP 12(c) requires.
• NRS 11.259 does not specify any deadline for raising the issue of noncompliance.

The Court thus held that the defense was properly and timely raised. This serves as guidance to practitioners:

• Defendants should plead NRS 11.258 noncompliance as an affirmative defense and can then choose the appropriate timing and procedural vehicle (e.g., NRCP 12(c)) to seek dismissal.
• There is no requirement of an immediate NRCP 12(b) motion or sua sponte dismissal at filing.

F. Jurisdictional Consequences: The Void Summary Judgment Order

Although not the central doctrinal issue, the Court’s treatment of the district court’s later grant of partial summary judgment to TRE is instructive.

Once the court dismissed the action with prejudice, that dismissal constituted a final judgment. Absent a timely and proper motion under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (e.g., Rule 59 or 60), the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain further merits motions, including TRE’s summary judgment motion.

TRE conceded at oral argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter that order. The Supreme Court accordingly declared the order “void and without effect” and vacated it.

This reinforces for trial courts and practitioners that:

• Once a case is finally dismissed, any additional merits rulings require a reopened judgment via appropriate motion or a remand from the appellate court.
• Parties must be attentive to the finality of judgments when strategizing further motions.

IV. Impact of the Decision

A. For Plaintiffs in Nonresidential Construction Defect Cases

The decision substantially reduces the procedural risk for multi-plaintiff construction defect cases where:

• Multiple related entities (e.g., owner and tenant, affiliated companies) have parallel interests; and
• They proceed jointly under a common factual and expert framework.

Practical effects include:

• Cost and Efficiency – Plaintiffs can prepare one comprehensive expert report and affidavit for a joint complaint, rather than duplicating substantially identical submissions.
• Reduced Technical Dismissal Risk – Courts are instructed not to dismiss otherwise meritorious claims simply because multiple plaintiffs share a single affidavit and report where their claims are aligned and identical.
• In-House Counsel Flexibility – Corporate or real estate groups with internal legal departments (like the Siegel Group) can coordinate expert consultations in the entity’s name, so long as a specific attorney signs the affidavit and actually performs the review and consultation.

B. For Design Professionals and Contractors (Defendants)

From defendants’ perspective:

• The decision does not weaken the substantive gatekeeping function of NRS 11.258: an affidavit and expert report are still mandatory, and dismissals are still required where they are wholly absent.
• But it narrows purely technical defenses based on duplication or form-over-substance arguments:
  • Defendants cannot insist on separate reports merely because there are multiple plaintiffs in a unified complaint asserting identical claims.
  • They cannot force experts to litigate legal elements (standing, privity) in their reports.
• Defendants should focus their challenges on:
  • Whether an expert with appropriate qualifications was actually consulted;
  • Whether the expert’s reasoning and conclusions have a good-faith factual basis; and
  • Whether the affidavit was in fact filed with the first pleading.

C. For Trial Courts

The decision provides concrete guidance:

• When reviewing NRS 11.258 compliance, courts should focus on substance over form:
  • Has the attorney reviewed the facts and consulted an appropriate expert?
  • Has the expert provided a reasoned opinion that there is a reasonable basis for the lawsuit?
• Courts should avoid:
  • Dismissing suits because multiple, aligned plaintiffs share one affidavit and one set of expert reports; or
  • Inferring prejudice or lack of compliance from internal differences among plaintiffs (e.g., contract privity) that go to merits, not to the gatekeeping function.

D. Broader Doctrinal Direction: From Hypertechnicality to Functionality

Together with Limprasert and earlier medical malpractice decisions like Baxter, Bagelmania signals a broader doctrinal direction:

• Affidavit-of-merit statutes are to be strictly enforced in principle (no action without some qualifying affidavit and expert support), but
• Not interpreted hypertechnically in ways that defeat valid claims over formal defects that do not undermine the statute’s purpose.

In short, Nevada’s Supreme Court is charting a course that preserves protections for professionals against frivolous suits, while safeguarding access to the courts for well-founded claims that have truly been vetted by experts and counsel.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Affidavit of Merit

An “affidavit of merit” is a sworn statement by the plaintiff’s attorney that:

• The attorney has reviewed the case;
• Has consulted with an expert qualified in the relevant field; and
• Believes, based on that consultation and factual review, that there is a reasonable basis to file the lawsuit.

Its function is to show that the case is not frivolous before it burdens the defendant and the court system.

2. Expert Report under NRS 11.258

The expert report is a technical document from an engineer, architect, or similar professional explaining:

• Who the expert is and why they are qualified;
• What documents or information they reviewed;
• What defects or problems they found; and
• Why those defects give the lawsuit a reasonable basis.

The expert does not need to resolve legal issues like contract interpretation or standing.

3. “Substantial Compliance”

“Substantial compliance” means that a party has satisfied the essential purpose of a legal requirement, even if it did not adhere perfectly to every technical detail. Courts may accept substantial compliance where:

• The core objectives of a statute (e.g., screening out frivolous cases) have been achieved; and
• The deviations from exact procedure did not prejudice the opposing party or undermine the statute’s function.

4. “Void Ab Initio” Pleading

A pleading that is “void ab initio” is treated as if it never legally existed. In this context, a construction defect complaint served without any required affidavit and expert report under NRS 11.258 may be treated as void from the start, meaning:

• It cannot be saved by amendment; and
• A new action, filed with proper supporting documents, is required.

5. Gatekeeping Statutes vs. Merits Determinations

A “gatekeeping statute” like NRS 11.258 is designed to:

• Screen out baseless lawsuits early, and
• Ensure that plaintiffs had a qualified expert vet their claims before suing.

It does not decide whether the plaintiff will ultimately win or lose. Issues like:

• Whether the plaintiff has standing;
• Whether the plaintiff is a third-party beneficiary of a contract; or
• Whether a particular legal theory (e.g., negligence vs. contract) will succeed

are litigated later on motions for summary judgment or at trial. The affidavit-and-report requirement concerns only whether the case is sufficiently grounded in fact and expert support to proceed at all.

VI. Conclusion

Bagelmania Holdings, LLC v. RDH Interests, Inc. significantly clarifies Nevada’s affidavit-of-merit and expert-report requirements in nonresidential construction defect litigation under NRS 11.258 and 11.259. The Court holds that when:

• Multiple plaintiffs file a joint complaint,
• Assert identical claims arising from the same alleged construction defects, and
• Are represented by the same attorney,

a single affidavit and a single set of expert reports satisfy the statutory requirements. The decision:

• Distinguishes Otak and avoids extending it in a manner that would impose unnecessary and duplicative procedural hurdles;
• Endorses a substantial-compliance approach that focuses on the purpose of NRS 11.258—screening out frivolous suits, not barring legitimate ones over formal technicalities;
• Clarifies that expert reports need not address plaintiffs’ standing or contract relationships, which are merits questions; and
• Reaffirms basic jurisdictional principles about the finality of judgments and the invalidity of post-judgment merits orders entered without jurisdiction.

In the broader legal landscape, Bagelmania aligns construction defect jurisprudence with Nevada’s approach to medical malpractice pleading requirements: gatekeeping statutes are enforced to require genuine expert-vetted claims, but are not used to erect artificial barriers to the courthouse door for otherwise valid litigation. This case will guide trial courts and practitioners in structuring multi-plaintiff construction defect actions and will likely reduce avoidable, technical dismissals that turn on form rather than substance.