Gemini, Inc. v. Fertil

Nevada Supreme Court

Gemini, Inc. v. Fertil

547 P.2d 687, 92 Nev. 183, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 560

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 25, 1976

DocketNo. 8145

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 547 P.2d 687 (Gemini, Inc. v. Fertil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gemini, Inc. v. Fertil, 547 P.2d 687, 92 Nev. 183, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 560 (Neb. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Minna Fértil filed this action after being injured in a fall at appellant’s Lady Luck Casino in Las Vegas. Appellant faded to answer the complaint and a default judgment was taken.

A motion to set aside the judgment, timely brought under NRCP 60(b), contended that appellant’s failure to answer was the result of inadvertence and/or excusable neglect.¹ The motion was denied, as was rehearing, and on this appeal it is contended that the refusal of the district court to set aside the judgment was an abuse of discretion. We do not agree.

The record establishes that the summons and complaint were delivered to appellant’s insurance carrier by a local insurance agent shortly after service thereof upon the defendant. By affidavit, an employee of the insurance carrier outlined office policy and procedure for handling such documents. The procedure apparently was not followed, resulting in the unexplained loss or misplacement of the complaint.

This is not a case, as appellant suggests, where a defendant has been misled into believing a default would not be taken. Cf. Minton v. Roliff, 86 Nev. 478, 471 P.2d 209 (1970). Here, the summons and complaint simply disappeared with no [185]*185apparent explanation. Although it may be argued that inadvertence or neglect in the abstract has been shown, the reasons for such inadvertence or neglect are not presented. Consequently, we are unable to say that the trial court should have found such surmised inadvertence or neglect to be excusable. Bryant v. Gibbs, 69 Nev. 167, 243 P.2d 1050 (1952).

Perceiving no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Minna Fértil filed this action after being injured in a fall at appellant’s Lady Luck Casino in Las Vegas. Appellant faded to answer the complaint and a default judgment was taken.

A motion to set aside the judgment, timely brought under NRCP 60(b), contended that appellant’s failure to answer was the result of inadvertence and/or excusable neglect.¹ The motion was denied, as was rehearing, and on this appeal it is contended that the refusal of the district court to set aside the judgment was an abuse of discretion. We do not agree.

The record establishes that the summons and complaint were delivered to appellant’s insurance carrier by a local insurance agent shortly after service thereof upon the defendant. By affidavit, an employee of the insurance carrier outlined office policy and procedure for handling such documents. The procedure apparently was not followed, resulting in the unexplained loss or misplacement of the complaint.

This is not a case, as appellant suggests, where a defendant has been misled into believing a default would not be taken. Cf. Minton v. Roliff, 86 Nev. 478, 471 P.2d 209 (1970). Here, the summons and complaint simply disappeared with no [185]*185apparent explanation. Although it may be argued that inadvertence or neglect in the abstract has been shown, the reasons for such inadvertence or neglect are not presented. Consequently, we are unable to say that the trial court should have found such surmised inadvertence or neglect to be excusable. Bryant v. Gibbs, 69 Nev. 167, 243 P.2d 1050 (1952).

Perceiving no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 P.2d 687, 92 Nev. 183, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gemini-inc-v-fertil-nev-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack