127 P.3d 1057 (2006) Michael THOMAS and John Armstrong, Appellants, v. THE CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS and The North Las Vegas Police Officers Association, Inc., Respondents. City of North Las Vegas, Appellant, v. Michael Thomas, Respondent. City of North Las Vegas, Appellant, v. John Armstrong, Respondent. No. 39639, 42148, 42641. Supreme Court of Nevada. February 9, 2006. *1059 Muije & Varricchio and John W. Muije and Philip T. Varricchio, Las Vegas, for Appellants and Respondents Michael Thomas and John Armstrong. Carie A. Torrence, Acting City Attorney, North Las Vegas, for Respondent City of North Las Vegas. Kamer Zucker & Abbott and Jody M. Florence and Gregory J. Kamer, Las Vegas, for Appellant City of North Las Vegas. John R. Hawley, Henderson; George R. Fleischli, Madison, Wisconsin; Calvin William Sharpe, Cleveland, Ohio, for Amicus Curiae National Academy of Arbitrators. Before the Court En Banc. OPINION ROSE, C.J. Michael Thomas and John Armstrong were formerly employed with the North Las Vegas Police Department (NLVPD). Thomas and Armstrong were terminated from their positions as police officers. Under their union's collective bargaining agreement, they were entitled to arbitrate their grievances regarding their terminations with the City of North Las Vegas. However, the City and NLVPD's union, the North Las Vegas Police Officers Association, Inc. (NLVPOA), denied Thomas and Armstrong arbitration. Thomas and Armstrong sued both the City and the NLVPOA, and the district court compelled arbitration. Thomas and Armstrong then filed a motion for attorney fees and costs, arguing that they were entitled to attorney fees under the substantial benefit doctrine, NRS 18.010(2)(a) (recovery under $20,000), and NRS 18.010(2)(b) (groundless defenses).[1] The district court denied their motion in its entirety, and Thomas and Armstrong appeal that determination in Docket No. 39639. Thomas and Armstrong then arbitrated their grievances with the City. In each arbitration, the arbitrator found that the City had grounds for discharge and upheld the terminations. Thomas and Armstrong each filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award *1060 under NRS 38.145[2] and manifest disregard of the law. The City filed motions to confirm the arbitration awards. The district courts found in favor of Thomas and Armstrong and vacated both arbitration awards. The City appeals these decisions in Docket Nos. 42148 and 42641. We conclude that Thomas and Armstrong's argument regarding attorney fees is without merit. First, to qualify for the substantial benefit exception to the American rule that parties generally must bear their own attorney fees, the prevailing party must show that the losing party has received a benefit from the litigation. Thomas and Armstrong have not shown that the City received a benefit from their litigation. Second, under NRS 18.010(2)(a), it is well settled that a money judgment is a prerequisite to recovery of attorney fees, and Thomas and Armstrong have not presented a compelling argument to support their request that we abrogate that requirement. We also conclude that their argument under NRS 18.010(2)(b) is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. Additionally, we impose …
Original document ES