Gaines v. Gaines

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: October 17, 2013
• Docket: 60591
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

action, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over appellant's efforts to challenge the probate of his father's estate and that, regardless, appellant failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. On appeal, appellant argues that the district court improperly dismissed his action, as respondent's conduct in the probate matter amounted to a civil tort. Because neither NRS 155.010 nor NRS Chapter 134 establish an independent cause of action for failure to comply with the requirements of those chapters, see Richardson Constr., Inc. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 123 Nev. 61, 65, 156 P.3d 21, 23 (2007) (explaining that "when a statute does not expressly provide for a private cause of action, the absence of such a provision suggests that the Legislature did not intend for the statute to be enforced through a private cause of action"), and appellant seemingly sought to address what he saw as procedural errors in the probate court's handling of his father's estate by filing an entirely new complaint in the district court, we conclude that the district court did not err in concluding that appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that this court rigorously reviews orders dismissing an action, and as such, accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all inferences in favor of appellant); see also NRCP 60(b) (allowing a party to challenge a judgment or order within the same action, within six months, when the party believes the judgment or order was improperly entered); Savage v. Salzmann, 88 Nev. 193, 195, 495 P.2d 367, 368 (1972) (explaining that while NRCP 60(b) does not prevent a party from bringing an independent

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA

(0) 1947A action for relief from a judgment or order, such independent action will only be entertained if there is proof of extrinsic fraud). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

, J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

J.

cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge Ronald Kwame Gaines McFarley Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

1 While appellant also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for transportation of an inmate, the record demonstrates that the motion did not comply with the district court's rules, and was thus properly denied. See EDCR 2.20(b)-(c) (requiring that all motions must be accompanied by a notice of the motion and a memorandum of points and authorities supporting the motion).

In light of this order, we deny as moot all requests for relief currently pending in this appeal.