TOPTAL, LLC v. DENIS GROSZ Court Filing, retrieved on February 26, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 3 of 7. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here I. Mr. Grosz Cannot Prove Breach Of Contract “[I]n the absence of ambiguity or other factual complexities,” none of which is present here, “contract interpretation presents a question of law that [] district court[s] may decide on summary judgment.” 129 Nev. 306, 309 (2013); 133 Nev. 549, 553-55 (2017) (reversing denial of summary judgment on breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims because “[n]othing in the four corners of the [] agreement prohibited” defendant's conduct). If a provision at issue in the contract is “not ... reasonably subject to the construction for which [the nonmoving party] contends,” summary judgment is warranted in favor of the moving party. 70 Nev. 427, 430-32 (1954), 121 Nev. at 724. Galardi v. Naples Polaris, LLC, see also State Dep’t of Transp. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. in & for Cnty. of Clark, Parman v. Petricciani, abrogated on other grounds by Wood, Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on October 11, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. media.licdn.com