Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is just my opinion from what I can determine.
From what I can determine from the case record of April 24, 2011 the following happened:
Mr. Hanes requested summary judgment ("rule in my favor and nullify the NLV and CC laws judge") and the judge denied his request.
NLV requested summary judgment ("rule in our favor and keep the NLV law intact judge") and the judge granted the request because, in the courts eyes, Mr. Hanes "lacks standing to seek declaratory relief". In essence, the court said Mr. Hanes doesn't have a "requisite personal interest" (isn't the right plaintiff to bring suit against NLV possibly?) in overturning the NLV law. This could be because he may not be a resident of NLV.....just a guess on my part.
What's interesting is that the other defendant in this case, Clark County, didn't seek a counter-motion, as NLV did, for summary judgment also. This could be because Mr. Hanes, by being a resident of CC, does have a "requisite personal interest" in overturning the CC law.
Still, the case is still set to be heard on July 5, 2011 with CC as the only defendant since NLV was granted a summary judgment in their favor.
All is not lost though because Mr.Hanes can appeal the judges decision to the NV Supreme Court which functions as the NV Appeals Court. This probably won't happen until the case is decided in July.
If someone has a different interpretation of what happened in this case please share.
Tom