Thompson Vs. U.S. Bank Tr., N.A.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 18, 2020
• Docket: 79660
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WOLFE THOMPSON, No. 79660 Appellant, vs. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION FILED TRUST, SEP 1 8 2020 Res • ondent. ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK 9F SUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY I 14.Etr CE

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court final judgment in an interpleader action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kenneth C. Cory, Judge.' Appellant contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the case because the district court dismissed the case on June 5, 2018, and respondent did not file its motion to reopen within EDCR 2.90(c)'s 30-day time frame. However, no notice of entry of the June 5, 2018, order was ever served, meaning EDCR 2.90(c)'s time frame was never triggered, and further meaning that respondent's motion to reopen was timely filed.

'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.

2o - sqLis c We therefore need not address appellant's arguments regarding a charging lien.2 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.3

Parraguirre

, J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge Wolfe Thompson Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

2Appellant's arguments regarding the existence of a charging lien appear to be premised on the district court lacking jurisdiction to reopen the case. To the extent that they are not, appellant has failed to coherently explain how he would be entitled to a lien on funds that are not his former client's property. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (explaining that it is an appellant's responsibility to present cogent arguments). Moreover, the record is devoid of evidence that appellant took any steps to perfect his lien in compliance with NRS 18.015 and applicable case law. 3We decline respondent's request for attorney fees because its

answering brief is substantively identical to its July 15, 2019, filing in district court.