district court when it reaches the correct result, even if based on the wrong reason. Sengel v. IGT , 116 Nev. 565, 570, 2 P.3d 258, 261 (2000). [41] Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. , 121 Nev. ___, ___, 124 P.3d 530, 547 (2005). [42] Sandy Valley Assocs. v. Sky Ranch Estates , 117 Nev. 948, 956, 35 P.3d 964, 969 (2001). [43] 121 Nev. ___, 124 P.3d 530. [44] Id. at ___, 124 P.3d at 548. [45] Id. [46] Id. at ___, 124 P.3d at 548-49 (quoting University of Nevada v. Tarkanian , 110 Nev. 581, 591, 879 P.2d 1180, 1186 (1994)). [47] 85 Nev. 345, 349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). [48] Shuette , 121 Nev. at ___, 124 P.3d at 549. [49] See Hazelwood v. Harrah’s , 109 Nev. 1005, 1011, 862 P.2d 1189, 1192 (1993) (stating that “[i]t is error for a trial court to award prejudgment interest for the entire amount of the verdict when it is impossible to determine what part of the verdict represented past damages”), overruled on other grounds by Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands , 115 Nev. 243, 984 P.2d 750 (1999). [50] Id. ; see also Stickler v. Quilici , 98 Nev. 595, 597, 655 P.2d 527, 528 (1982) (concluding, in the context of a personal injury case, that the jury’s general verdict was insufficient for the court to determine what portion of the verdict was properly attributed to past damages). [51] Farmers Home Mutual Ins. v. Fiscus , 102 Nev. 371, 375, 725 P.2d 234, 236 (1986). [52] Shuette , 121 Nev. at ___, 124 P.3d at 550. [53] Id. [54] Gibellini v. Klindt , 110 Nev. 1201, 1209, 885 P.2d 540, 544 (1994). [55] Bobby Berosini, Ltd. v. PETA , 114 Nev. 1348, 1355-56, 971 P.2d 383, 387-88 (1998); Gibellini , 110 Nev. at 1209, 885 P.2d at 544. [56] See McNair v. Rivera , 110 Nev. 463, 468 n.6, 874 P.2d 1240, 1244 n.6 (1994); Bradley v. Romeo , 102 Nev. 103, 105, 716 P.2d 227, 228 (1986); Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co. , 91 Nev. 222, 229-30, 533 P.2d 473, 478 (1975). [57] BHY Trucking v. Hicks , 102 Nev. 331, 333, 720 P.2d 1229, 1231 (1986). [58] NRS 17.130(2). [59] Lee v. Ball , 121 Nev. ___, ___, 116 P.3d 64, 67 (2005). [60] Bergmann v. Boyce , 109 Nev. 670, 679, 856 P.2d 560, 565 (1993) (citing NRS 18.020(3)). [61] Id. at 679, 856 P.2d at 565-66. [62] Id. [63] Additionally, upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the district court likewise did not abuse its discretion by denying the Albioses’ request for post-trial attorney fees and costs. ***************************** 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 28 March 30, 2006 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA No. 44135 PAUL D.S. EDWARDS, Appellant, vs. EMPEROR'S GARDEN RESTAURANT; NEVADA DRAGON, INC.; TINA S. CHEN; AND ALAN CHEN, Respondents. No. 44483 PAUL D.S. EDWARDS, Appellant, vs. CENICOLA-HELVIN ENTERPRISES, D/B/A BANNERVIEW.COM; MARK CENICOLA; AND JEFF R. HELVIN, Respondents. Proper person appeals from district court orders dismissing complaints alleging violations of federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and state laws, and appeal from an order awarding attorney fees as sanctions. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Sally L. Loehrer (No. 44135) and Michelle Leavitt (No. 44483), Judges. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded (No. 44135); affirmed (No. 44483) . Paul D.S. Edwards, Las Vegas, in Proper Person. Adams & Rocheleau, LLC, and James R. Adams, Henderson, for Respondents Emperor’s Garden Restaurant; Nevada Dragon, Inc.; Tina S. Chen; and Alan Chen. Flangas McMillan Law Group, Inc., and Gus W. Flangas, John R. McMillan and Kimberly P. Stein, Las Vegas, for Respondents Cenicola-Helvin Enterprises, d/b/a Bannerview.com; Mark Cenicola; and Jeff R. Helvin. BEFORE MAUPIN, GIBBONS and HARDESTY, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM: These appeals present several issues concerning suits, filed in Nevada courts, that assert claims for relief under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act[1] (TCPA). In particular, we consider issues pertaining to the courts’ jurisdiction over, the propriety of granting statutory injunctive relief in the context of, and whether the federal, four-year statute of limitations or Nevada’s two-year statute of limitations applies to, private actions brought pursuant to the TCPA—private actions alleging that an unsolicited advertisement was transmitted to a personal facsimile machine. Because of the factual and legal similarities of the separate underlying events in these appeals, we resolve them together. We first conclude that, in cases seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages under the TCPA, the district court has jurisdiction over all portions of the complaint, even if the damages sought fail to meet the district court’s monetary jurisdictional threshold. Since the court has original jurisdiction over injunction requests, a complaint properly alleging that the TCPA was violated and requesting injunctive relief necessarily invokes the court’s jurisdiction over all interrelated portions of that complaint, including claims for monetary damages, regardless of the amount sought. Accordingly, the district court improperly dismissed the noninjunctive portions of the complaint in Docket No. 44135. We agree with the district court, however, that an injunction is not mandated simply when a TCPA violation is demonstrated and that Nevada’s two-year statute of limitations applies to private TCPA claims. We also agree with the district court’s determinations regarding its resolution of certain state law claims and its award of attorney fees; therefore, an injunction was properly denied in Docket No. 44135, and the action was properly dismissed and the complainant sanctioned in Docket No. 44483. BACKGROUND Congress enacted the TCPA to discourage sending, and to help avoid the annoyance associated with receiving, unwelcome advertisements over telephone lines. Under its provisions, private persons may pursue both monetary and injunctive relief for TCPA violations, such as when unsolicited advertisements are transmitted to facsimile machines.[2] Docket No. 44135 After respondents Emperor’s Garden Restaurant; Nevada Dragon, Inc.; Tina S. Chen; and Alan Chen (collectively, Emperor’s Garden) allegedly transmitted two unsolicited advertisements to appellant Paul D.S. Edwards’ personal facsimile machine, Edwards instituted a district court action against them. In his 2004 complaint, Edwards asserted causes of action for monetary damages and injunctive relief under the TCPA, and for monetary damages under state deceptive trade practices, conversion, and privacy tort laws. Edwards’ complaint included claims for $3,000 in damages for the alleged TCPA violations,[3] compensatory and punitive damages “in excess of $10,000 for violations of State Acts,” and attorney fees and costs. In response, Emperor’s Garden moved to dismiss Edwards’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Edwards’ claimed damages did not meet the $7,500 jurisdictional threshold for district court actions in place at the time the complaint was filed. Emperor’s Garden also contended that injunctive relief was unavailable, in large part because injunctive relief is appropriate to halt ongoing violations, and Emperor’s Garden had discontinued sending any facsimiles nearly four years before Edwards filed his complaint. Emperor’s Garden further argued that if the district court exercised its discretion to deny injunctive relief because it was unlikely to engage in any future wrongful conduct, the court would then have no jurisdiction over the matter. Agreeing with Emperor’s Garden’s reasoning, the district court dismissed the suit. Edwards appeals. Docket No. 44483 Similarly, Edwards instituted a district court action when respondents Cenicola-Helvin Enterpris

Vegas Law