The $131,000,000 MGM Grand Hotel greeted every incoming flight to Reno-Cannon International the same way the old arch greeted every train at the railroad depot downtown. The MGM Grand - it's the freshly painted Reno Hilton now - was the flagship of Nevada's gamblinghouse fleet, the most magnificent pleasure liner ever launched on Nevada's. Check out our mgm reno casino selection for the very best in unique or custom, handmade pieces from our shops.

Grand Sierra Resort
Location	Reno, Nevada, U.S.
Address	2500 East Second Street
Opening date	May 3, 1978; 42 years ago
Theme	Modern
No. of rooms	2,001[1]
Total gaming space	63,584 sq ft (5,907.1 m2)[2]
Notable restaurants	California Pizza Kitchen Charlie Palmer Steak
Owner	The Meruelo Group
Architect	Martin Stern, Jr. and Associates Worth Group
Previous names	MGM Grand Reno (1978–1986) Bally's Reno (1986–1992) Reno Hilton (1992–2006)
Renovated in	1981, 2012, 2013, 2014
Coordinates	39°31′22″N119°46′45″W / 39.522854°N 119.779226°WCoordinates: 39°31′22″N119°46′45″W / 39.522854°N 119.779226°W
Website	grandsierraresort.com

Grand Sierra Resort (formerly MGM Grand Reno, Bally's Reno and Reno Hilton) is a hotel and casino located approximately three miles east of Downtown Reno, Nevada. The hotel has 1,990 guest rooms and suites, 10 restaurants, including two by celebrity chef Charlie Palmer^[1] and a casino with 63,584 sq ft (5,907.1 m²) of space.^[2][3] The Grand Sierra has a movie theater,^[4] a Race & Sports Book, nightclubs including LEX a 25,000 sq ft venue with a swimming pool, lake golf driving range, a two screen cinema, an RV park and a recently opened ice rink.^[5] It is owned and operated by Southern California based investment group headed by The Meruelo Group.

History[edit]

MGM Grand (1978–1986)[edit]

In 1975, officials from the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Company began to scout out Reno locations for their proposed high rise hotel-casino they wanted to model after their very high-profile Las Vegas casino, the MGM Grand. Following a deal with and approval from the City Council, MGM purchased land between Mill and 2nd Streets, at that time a gravel pit. The Summer of 1976 saw construction begin on the 26 story, 1,015 room property that would then be one of the largest in the world. After two years of fast-tracked construction, the building opened with fanfare, fashion and media attention on May 3, 1978.

In the Summer of 1981, MGM opened an expansion of the hotel with a 26-story wing plus an additional 900 rooms, making a total of 2,001 rooms and suites. Three years later in November 1984 MGM revealed plans to expand the Reno hotel further: a $60 million 26 story wing with another 954 rooms, which never materialized. After fights and issues with the City Council, the expansion was later approved on September 23, 1985, amid rumors the MGM would be sold. Less than five months later on November 16, 1985 those rumors proved to be true with Bally Manufacturing announcing that it would acquire the Reno and Las Vegas MGM's for $440 million, further questioning the newly approved expansion for Reno.

Bally's (1986–1992)[edit]

The increased purchase price transaction was completed in April 1986 and MGM Grand Reno became Bally's Reno, the price to purchase the MGM assets came out being more than $550 million. The expansion for Reno was delayed indefinitely leaving the current structure with 2,001 rooms. On April 18, 1989, Bally's shut down the popular Donn Arden production 'Hello Hollywood Hello' that was created for the MGM Reno. It closed after 11 years and performances in front of more than 7 million people. It remains still the longest-running production show to ever play in Reno. In 1990 Wall-Street began to tout financial problems with Bally Manufacturing; but in July 1990, they refute the claim and announce they will continue to operate the hotel-casinos. Three months later in October 1990, it became known that Bally's was struggling with $1.8 billion in debts and announced a plan to restructure and reorganize to keep Bally's Reno operating. After two years of sluggish operations, on February 27, 1992, Bally Manufacturing, parent company of Bally's, filed for bankruptcy. The next month, in March 1992, the hotel was placed on the market in an attempt to aid their debt by unloading the non-revenue producing Bally's Reno, sister hotel Bally's Las Vegas was far more superior in terms of revenues. Quickly, bidding began between Hilton Hotels Inc and Harveys Casino. The bidding went on until June 1992 when Hilton put an end to the fight, bidding $83 million. The transaction took a few weeks to complete.

Reno Hilton (1992–2006)[edit]

On July 31, 1992, Bally's Reno became officially the Reno Hilton.

Free of financial problems and immediately after the sale, Hilton began investing $86 million worth of renovations in 1994/1995 to transform completely the interior and exterior of the hotel and direct the theme towards a more Western image. In December 1993, during the renovations, Hilton confirmed that it was looking into building a 1,000 room addition. The Reno Hilton's ownership was a series of managers and company names; it was Hilton Hotel Inc. from 1992-1999 when Hilton spun off its gaming operations into a separate company called Park Place Entertainment. Then in 2003, following a 2001 purchase of Caesars World, Park Place changed its name to Caesars Entertainment, with Hilton still holding an affiliation with the company. Around this time, the Reno Hilton was again being renovated. In May 2005, it became known that Caesars Entertainment, which was pending in a merger with Harrah's Entertainment, had to disassociate all hotels under the Hilton brand as Hilton had removed itself from the company and did not want to become part of the merger. Consequently, the property was placed on the market and quickly picked up by a group of investors known as the Grand Sierra Resort Corp. The purchase price was $151 million.

The transaction from Caesars Entertainment to GSR Corp involving the $151 million sale of the Reno Hilton was lengthy. The sale was announced in early May 2005 but wasn't completed until June 2006 due to finance and licensing problems.

Grand Sierra Resort (2006–present)[edit]

After all problems were addressed with all parties involved, the Reno Hilton became the Grand Sierra Resort and Casino on June 24, 2006.

During the first ownership of the Grand Sierra Resort nearly $100 million was spent to convert the property into the new brand. The money was spent on reconfiguration of the public areas, a new swimming pool area, update for the casino that included keeping the original MGM-like ceilings, a refreshed hotel lobby and converting floors 17–27 into 'hotel-condos' called The Summit. The company had larger-scale expansion plans that included a water park, boutique shopping, a water and laser show, 48-story condominium high-rises and further renovations. Those never came to fruition. Briefly, the hotel was home to Nikki Beach nightlife and Ashton Kutcher's Dolce Enoteca restaurant. In October 2008, in the midst of the economic crises, GSR's ownership or group of investors failed to make payments on their loans with their financier, JPMorgan, essentially bankrupt, the bank foreclosed on the 2,001 room hotel/casino and assumed ownership, assigning it to their affiliate Credit Markets Real Estate Holdings to oversee operations. That affiliate brought on Las Vegas-based management companies such as Catalyst, who flips struggling hotel/casinos and makes them attractive to a buyer. Those companies, including the Navengante Group and Santo Gaming, both Las Vegas based, continued to make improvements to the resort such as adding or replacing restaurants. The hotel/condo program was eliminated and settlements with buyers are ongoing to this day, the renovated rooms above the 17th floor that are non-private owned rent as hotel rooms.

In 2009, The Meruelo Group began looking at the property with an interest to purchase it. CEO Alex Meruelo was intrigued by the property's potential to truly become an elite destination resort. After negotiations between Meruelo and JPMorgan, a deal was reached to sell the 145-acre site for only $42 million. This payment was made in cash, and the deal was announced in February 2011. Quickly, the deal closed after regulatory approval in April 2011. Out of bank ownership, Meruelo pledged to continually make improvements. Not gamers, Meruelo, owner of successful restaurant chains, TV stations and construction companies, was now in the business of hotel/casinos. He brought on seasoned management from Las Vegas to help in his effort to rebrand the property. In August 2011, the company announced a multi-phase $25 million improvement program that would renovate the casino, hotel lobby, rooms and restaurants. In August 2012, that program was completed. Favoring bright and modern versus elegant and dark. Even with the first round of renovations completed, Meruelo was not stopping their improvements with renovations to their sports book, a new Spa, new stores and a $14 million nightclub opened in 2014. For the first time in the property's 30-year history, exterior enhancements were made in 2014.

In Spring 2013, it was announced Meruelo Group had a firm deal to acquire an Atlantic City Casino and Hotel Trump Plaza for $20 million, however, in April 2013, that deal was put on hold as the parent company's mortgage holder put a stop to the deal. Meruelo was still committed to acquiring it and expanding their network of hotel/casinos. Another renovation for the meeting space occurred in the summer of 2015.

Attractions[edit]

Casino[edit]

Grand Sierra has one of the largest casino floors in Reno and Northern Nevada with over 90,000 square feet of slots, video poker, table games and a race and sports book. It has been recently renovated to showcase an air of cosmopolitan with new carpet, table game decor, slot chairs and a new lighting element with new chandeliers of different dimensions dimmed with LED color changing accents installed in the arcs of the ceiling elements. Innovativo Design of Las Vegas is responsible for Grand Sierra's new casino look.

Dining[edit]

Grand Sierra features many dining options for guests ranging from affordable to very upscale.

Mgm Casino Las Vegas Nv

• 2nd Street Express – Snack Bar, operated by GSR
• California Pizza Kitchen – Pizza, salads and more, operated by GSR
• Grand Café (formerly known as Café Sierra) – 24-hour Café, operated by GSR
• Charlie Palmer Steak – Steakhouse, operated by GSR
• Johnny Rockets – Hamburgers, franchise, located in downstairs mall
• Port of Subs – Sandwiches, franchise, located in downstairs mall
• Rim – Asian, operated by GSR
• Round Table Pizza – Pizza, franchise, located in downstairs mall, operated by GSR
• Starbucks – coffee, franchised and operated by GSR
• The Grand Buffet (formerly known as The Lodge Buffet and Elements Buffet) – All-you-can-eat Buffet, operated by GSR

Grand Sierra Cinema[edit]

Grand Sierra Cinema is a two auditorium theater located in the lower level mall. The theater features movies that recently left mainstream theaters but haven't yet reached DVD for just $4. Movies are played once on weeknights and twice on weekend nights.

Fun Quest[edit]

Fun Quest is the resort's family entertainment center. Attractions in the FEC include a Laser Tag arena. Formerly Q-Zar/Quazar, it was converted to a Lazer Runner system in January 2007. In addition, a second arena was recently added for Battlefield Live.

Escape Room[edit]

A recent addition in the form of an escape room, Breakthrough Reno, now resides inside of the Grand Sierra Resort across from the Fun Quest center themed around an old hotel.

Grand Adventure Land[edit]

Grand Adventure Land is located at the northwest corner of the resort's property. Essentially a miniature amusement park featuring upcharge attractions, the park contains a 180-foot Skycoaster, and three go-cart tracks.

Grand Bay Driving Range[edit]

Grand Bay Driving Range is located at the southeast corner of the resort property along the north shore of the Grand Bay. It is a golf driving range where visitors may rent golf clubs and a bucket of balls to hit into the water of the man-made lake, where targets float at various distances on the water. ^[6]

Wedding Chapel[edit]

Grand Sierra Wedding Chapel offers two venues to host weddings. One is located inside on the lower level of the hotel and the other is outside near their pool.

Grand Theatre[edit]

A 2,700 seat concert and show venue. It is home to the world's largest indoor stage with more than a full acre of usable space. The theater was constructed to host MGM's 'Hello Hollywood Hello' Production from 1978-87. The stage is one of the largest in the world. The Meruelo Group remodeled the Grand Theatre at Grand Sierra Resort.

Events[edit]

The Grand Sierra is home to the local furry convention, aptly named Biggest Little Fur Con, since its inception in 2013.^[7][8]

References[edit]

1. ^ ^ab'About the GSR'. Grand Sierra Resort. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
2. ^ ^ab'Casino and Sports Book Best Casino in Reno, NV'. Grand Sierra Resort. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
3. ^'Listing of Financial Statements Square Footage'. Nevada Gaming Control Board. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
4. ^'Bowling Center'. Grand Sierra Resort. Retrieved August 29, 2015.
5. ^Team, News 4-Fox 11 Digital (November 23, 2019). 'Grand Sierra Resort celebrates the opening of The Ice Rink'. KRNV. Retrieved January 9, 2020.
6. ^Burrows, Kim (July 5, 2018). 'Unique Grand Sierra Resort driving range changing after 25 years'. KRNV. Retrieved August 22, 2019.
7. ^Krevitt, Zak (June 5, 2016). 'Photos of the Fastest Growing Furry Convention in America'. VICE. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
8. ^O'Neil, Ty (June 6, 2017). 'PHOTOS: Biggest Little Fur Con Draws Thousands to Reno'. This Is Reno. Retrieved June 8, 2020.

External links[edit]

• Official website
• Media related to Grand Sierra Resort at Wikimedia Commons

728 P.2d 821 (1986)

MGM GRAND HOTEL-RENO, INC., APPELLANT,v.IVAN INSLEY, RESPONDENT.

No. 16807.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Mgm Casinos In Reno

December 4, 1986.

*822 McDonald, Carano, Wilson, Bergin, Frankovich & Hicks, Reno, for appellant.

Riley M. Beckett and George McNally, Carson City, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Respondent Ivan Insley (Insley), a stage technician employed by appellant MGM Grand Hotel-Reno, Inc. (MGM), was injured while at work on March 16, 1984. He notified his supervisor and was taken to *823 Washoe Medical emergency room. He was released with instructions to remain off work for three days and to schedule an appointment with a private physician. On March 20, 1984, the injury was diagnosed as an umbilical hernia requiring surgical repair. On March 27, 1984, Insley sought a second opinion and was referred by MGM to Dr. Ramos who confirmed the need for surgery within the next few weeks. SIS Services, Inc., the claims administrator for MGM, determined that an umbilical hernia was not a compensable industrial injury and denied coverage. Insley filed an appeal with the Nevada Department of Administration. After a hearing on July 3, 1984, MGM was ordered by the hearing officer to accept Insley's claim for benefits.[1]

Insley underwent surgery on April 10, 1984. That same day MGM sent Insley a letter notifying him that he had been discharged under a provision in the collective bargaining agreement for failing to report for work without a satisfactory excuse for his absence. MGM also denied medical coverage under the company's group health insurance. Insley claimed that he had kept MGM advised of his medical status.

As a member of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Pictures Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 363, Insley was subject to the collective bargaining agreement between the union and MGM. The collective bargaining agreement provided a three-step arbitration procedure as the exclusive procedure for resolving grievances arising between MGM and its employees or the union. Insley, however, alleged that he had been discharged from his employment by MGM in retaliation for appealing the denial of his claim for industrial insurance benefits. Instead of submitting to arbitration, Insley filed a complaint with the district court alleging four causes of action: (1) that the conduct of MGM and SIS Services breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing of the contract of employment; (2) retaliatory discharge; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) conspiracy to deprive him of his industrial insurance benefits.

In response, MGM filed a motion to compel arbitration as mandated by federal law and the collective bargaining agreement. The district court held that the bargaining agreement did not reach the claims brought by the plaintiff and denied the motion to compel arbitration. MGM appeals.[2]

DISCUSSION

MGM contends that Insley's state law tort claims are preempted as a matter of federal law and must be resolved by arbitration because they fall within the ambit of the collective bargaining agreement.[3] Insley counters that his state law action falls within a recognized exception to the preemption doctrine and that he is not required to arbitrate his claims under the collective bargaining agreement. It is necessary for us to determine whether Insley's tort claims merely allege a violation of the labor contract and are preempted by federal law or whether his claims exist independently of the labor agreement and are properly within the jurisdiction of the state court.

*824 A suit in state court alleging a violation of a provision of a labor contract would be preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and resolved by federal labor law.[4] A tort action brought in state court which would require the court to interpret the meaning or scope of a term in the employment contract would also be preempted. Allis Chalmers v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 105 S. Ct. 1904, 85 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1985).

'... state-law rights and obligations that do not exist independently of private agreements, and that as a result can be waived or altered by agreement of private parties, are pre-empted by those agreements.' Id. at 213, 105 S. Ct. at 1912. We must focus on whether Insley's tort actions confer 'nonnegotiable state-law rights on employers or employees independent of any right established by contract, or, instead, whether evaluation of the tort claim is inextricably intertwined with consideration of the terms of the labor contract.' Id.[5]

Section 301 does not necessarily preempt every state law claim asserting a right that relates in some way to a provision in a collective bargaining agreement, or that relates more generally to the parties to such an agreement. Id. at 220, 105 S. Ct. at 1915. Congress did not intend to disturb state laws in existence that set minimum labor standards, but are unrelated in any way to the processes of bargaining or self-organization. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, ___, 105 S. Ct. 2380, 2398, 85 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1985). 'States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State. Child labor laws, minimum and other wage laws, laws affecting occupational health and safety ... are only a few examples.' Id. at 2398, quoting De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356, 96 S. Ct. 933, 936, 47 L. Ed. 2d 43 (1976).

The State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS) is an independent public agency which administers and is supported by the state insurance fund. NRS 616.1701. Employers and employees are governed by the terms, conditions and provisions set out in NRS Chapters 616 and 617.

The obligation to pay compensation benefits and the right to receive them exists as a matter of statute independent of any right established by contract. They are minimum standards 'independent of the collective-bargaining process [that] devolve on [employees] as individual workers, not as members of a collective organization.' Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, ___, 105 S. Ct. 2380, 2397, 85 L. Ed. 2d 728 (1985). Indeed, a contract of employment which would waive or modify the terms or liability created by NRS 616 would be void. NRS 616.265.

MGM is a self-insurer under NRS 616.291. It has contracted with SIS Services, Inc. to administer all injury claims arising under worker's compensation statutes. MGM's contract with SIS Services is a separate agreement independent of the collective bargaining agreement. Tortious conduct arising out of that relationship, therefore, is a matter of state, not federal, law. We turn now to consider each of Insley's claims.

*825 1. IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH.

Insley alleges that the collective bargaining agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which entitles him to be dealt with in good faith by SIS Services and MGM. This question is preempted by federal labor law since it would require a court to interpret the terms of the labor contract. Under federal law, state courts are without jurisdiction to decide that issue. See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, supra.

The question whether Insley is entitled to be dealt with in good faith by MGM and SIS Services for the payment of claim benefits, however, is a question which properly comes within the jurisdiction of a state court and can be heard without looking to the employment contract or federal law. The mere fact that Insley is subject to a collective bargaining agreement does not affect the parties' duties and obligations under state law. Consequently, the district court correctly refused to compel arbitration as to this aspect of Insley's claim.

2. RETALIATORY DISCHARGE.

Insley claims that he was fired in retaliation for appealing the denial of his industrial accident claim. The Ninth Circuit has held that a claim for wrongful termination based on state public policy is not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099, 105 S. Ct. 2319, 85 L. Ed. 2d 839 (1985). In so doing, the Ninth Circuit Court stated:

A claim grounded in state law for wrongful termination for public policy reasons poses no significant threat to the collective bargaining process; it does not alter the economic relationship between the employer and employee. The remedy is in tort, distinct from any contractual remedy an employee might have under the collective bargaining contract. It furthers the state's interest in protecting the general public an interest which transcends the employment relationship.

Id. at 1375. As a matter of strong public policy, this state recognizes that 'retaliatory discharge by an employer stemming from the filing of a workmen's compensation claim by an injured employee is actionable in tort.' Hansen v. Harrah's, 100 Nev. 60, 64, 675 P.2d 394, 397 (1984). Such an action arises from non-negotiable benefits provided by state law independent of any right or remedy established by contract. Following Garibaldi and Hansen, we hold that Insley's state tort action for retaliatory discharge is not preempted.[6] Accordingly, the district court correctly refused to compel arbitration as to this claim.

3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY.

Plaintiff's cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is also within the jurisdiction of the state court. In Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25, 430 U.S. 290, 97 S. Ct. 1056, 51 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act did not preempt a state tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the state tort action can be adjudicated without regard to the merits of the underlying labor dispute.

The alleged conspiracy between MGM and SIS Services to deprive Insley of industrial insurance benefits is also a matter properly within the jurisdiction of state court. SIS Services administers SIIS claims for MGM, a self-insurer under Nevada *826 law. As we have explained above, the relationship between SIS Services and MGM exists independently of and is not affected by any bargaining agreement. Thus, the district court did not err by refusing to compel arbitration as to these claims.

Based upon the preceding discussion, we hold, with one exception, that Insley's causes of action are not preempted under Section 301 of the LMRA and are therefore properly within the jurisdiction of the state court. Insley, therefore, is not required to resolve his claims through arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement. We therefore affirm the order of the district court denying MGM's motion to compel arbitration. We reverse only that part of the district court's order refusing to compel arbitration on Insley's claim that the collective bargaining agreement contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

NOTES

[1] According to MGM, Insley has been paid all the benefits due him pursuant to the order of the hearing officer. Insley does not deny this allegation.

[2] NRS 38.205 provides in pertinent part:

1. An appeal may be taken from:

(a) An order denying an application to compel arbitration made under NRS 38.045... .

[3] MGM also contends that Nevada's Uniform Arbitration Act (NRS Chapter 38) compels dismissal or a stay of Insley's complaint pending arbitration. Resolution of this issue would be identical whether we apply our own state law or the federal Labor Management Relations Act. Since we must examine the federal labor law in resolving MGM's contentions, we need not reach MGM's contentions regarding our state arbitration act.

[4] Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) provides: 'Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce ... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties... .' Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 § 301(a), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1982). In enacting Section 301, Congress intended the doctrines of federal labor law uniformly to prevail over inconsistent local rules. Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 104, 82 S. Ct. 571, 577, 7 L. Ed. 2d 593 (1962).

[5] In Allis-Chalmers, the Supreme Court held that the state tort at issue, bad faith handling of a disability claim included in a collective bargaining agreement, derived from the rights and obligations established by the contract and was defined by the contractual obligation of good faith. Since any attempt to assess tort liability under those circumstances would inevitably involve interpretation of the terms of the labor agreement, plaintiff's claims were to be dismissed or preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.

[6] We recognize that there is authority to the contrary. See, e.g., Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co. Inc., 762 F.2d 511 (7th Cir.1985); Johnson v. Hussman Corp., 610 F. Supp. 757 (E.D.Mo. 1985); Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 618 F. Supp. 1448 (S.D.Ill. 1985).

Also, our holding is consistent with Allis-Chalmers v. Lueck, supra. If Insley had sued for bad faith and retaliatory discharge for seeking benefits under MGM's group health and benefit program, then we would have to agree that any state tort action is preempted under LMRA Section 301.