Stinziano v. Steinberg

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 11, 2015
• Docket: 65124
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

but on his attorney as well. NRCP 5(b)(1); NRS 18.015(3). In addition, the district court failed to consider Stinziano's February 3, 2014, opposition to Steinberg's motion or to otherwise state in its order that it refused to consider the opposition because it was late, see EDCR 2.20(e); EDCR 5.11(d), and the district court failed to consider the Brunzell factors and set forth its reasoning regarding those factors in its order. See Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 540 n.2, 216 P.3d 779, 788 n.2 (2009); Brunzell, 85 Nev. at 349-50, 455 P.2d at 33-34. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in adjudicating the retaining lien, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for new proceedings on the motion to adjudicate the retaining lien consistent with this order.

,J Saitta

eaA. J. Pickering

cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division Anthony Michael Stinziano Steinberg Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A