Voss v. Valester

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 12, 2014
• Docket: 63746
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

The district court has broad discretion in ruling on NRCP 60(b) motions, and an order denying relief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Kahn v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 513, 835 P.2d 790, 792 (1992). A complaint may not be amended when a final judgment has been entered, unless that judgment is set aside or vacated in accordance with the rules of civil procedure. SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 608, 612, 173 P.3d 715, 717 (2007). Appellant argues that leave to amend should have been granted under liberal pleading rules. While leave to amend shall be freely given when justice requires, the trial judge retains discretion to deny a motion to amend. Stephens v. S. Nev. Music Co., 89 Nev. 104, 105, 507 P.2d 138, 139 (1973). Here, the district court observed that leave to amend was only sought after the original complaint had been dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal, that the dismissal had not been otherwise set aside or vacated, and that appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion for relief was extremely untimely. Thus, we discern no abuse in the district court's exercise of its discretion. SFPP, L.P., 123 Nev. at 612, 173 P.3d at 717; Kahn, 108 Nev. at 513, 835 P.2d at 792; Connell v. Carl's Air Conditioning, 97 Nev. 436, 439, 634 P.2d 673, 675 (1981). Appellant also argues that the district court failed to consider NRCP 60(b)(5) in evaluating appellant's motion because the district court's judgment could not be construed as equitable. Appellant misconstrues this rule, which addresses equity with respect to an injunction's prospective application and does not provide general relief from inequitable judgments. NRCP 60(b)(5). This appeal and appellant's underlying case do not involve an injunction or any other basis for implicating NRCP 60(b)(5). Consequently, we conclude that the district

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order relief under NRCP 60(b)(5). Kahn, 108 Nev. at 513, 835 P.2d at 792. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

J.

Parraguirre

Saitta

cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge Steven Floyd Voss Attorney General/Carson City Pershing County Clerk

'We have considered appellant's other arguments, including appellant's argument regarding NRCP 60(a) and claim preclusion, and conclude that they do not warrant reversal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A