7/29/2019 5 22 13 0204 01955 60302 Order Affirm in Part Reverse in Part and Remanding to 2JDC No Numbers

1/5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 60302

FILMAY 2 2 2 13

ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART,REVERSING IN PART, AND REMANDING

This is a pro se appeal from a district court dismissal order in

ounty; Brent T. Adams, Judge.ppellant commenced the underlying action against

inorma au eris his com laint was not formall filed until Au ust 11

7/29/2019 5 22 13 0204 01955 60302 Order Affirm in Part Reverse in Part and Remanding to 2JDC No Numbers

2/5

plaint as to all respondents on the ground that appellant had noted service of process on any of the respondents within 120 days of

See NRCP 4(i) (requiring generally the dismissal of aplaint with respect to any defendant who is not served with themons and com plaint within 120 days after the complaint is filed).

Appellant then timely filed an NRCP 59(e) motion in which heset aside the dismissal order. Cf. AA Primo Builders LLC v.

Washington 126 Nev. , 245 P.3d 1190, 1193 2010) recognizingotion seeking to substantively alter a judgm ent is afforded

RCP 59 e) status). In it, appellant contended that the district court

o respondents Washoe Legals (WLS) and Paul Elcano because Elcano, who is WLS's registered

ons and complaint exactly 120 days from

The district court acknowledged that appellant had timelyndents. Nonetheless, the district court

59(e) motion, reasoning that service of processstill improper because appellant had filed a declaration, rather thanaffidavit, with the district court as proof that these respondents had

See NRCP 4(g)(2) (requiring a person who serves process and

affidavit ).On appeal, appellant contends that the district court abused

scretion in denying his NRCP 59(e) motion with respect to these two

7/29/2019 5 22 13 0204 01955 60302 Order Affirm in Part Reverse in Part and Remanding to 2JDC No Numbers

3/5

See AA Primo Builders, 126 Nev. at245 P.3d at 1197[A]n order denying an NRCP 59(e) motion is reviewable for abuse of

on appeal from the underlying judgm ent. ). Specifically,rict court improperly relied upon NRCP

se that rule expressly clarifies that If] ailure to make proof ofshall not affect the validity of the service. W e agree. 2

CP 59(e) motion insofar as the motion sought to reverse the dismissal's complaint as to WLS and Elcano. See BMW v. Roth, 127

A district court would necessarilyon if it based its ruling on an erroneous v iew of the

. . . (quotation omitted)).WLS and E lcano ask us to nevertheless affirm the district

missal as to them because appellant failed to meaningfullyismiss. Cf. Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev

042, 1049 (2010) (treating the failure to respond to a motion aseritorious). We decline to affirm based

comings in opposing the motions to dismiss, as doing

'Appellant has not cogently argued that dismissal was improperents, and we therefore do not

issal of appellant's complaint as to theSee Edwards v. Emperor s Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317,

30 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (noting that it is a party'sresponsibility to cogently argue, and present relevant authority, inupport of his appellate concerns ).

We also question whether appellant's proof of service was actuallyeficient. See Buckwalter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 126 N ev. ,234 P.3d 920, 921-22 (2010) (indicating that NRS 53.045 gives a

eclaration signed under penalty of perjury the same legal effect as anffidavit).

7/29/2019 5 22 13 0204 01955 60302 Order Affirm in Part Reverse in Part and Remanding to 2JDC No Numbers

4/5

ong other things, NRCP 59(e) is available to correct[ I manifest errorsAA Primo Builders, 126 Nev. at 245 P.3d at 1193as satisfied here because appellant's

s part of the district court record at the time it grantedents subsequently

August 11 2011 was the proper date from which toate NRCP 4(i)'s 120-day window. Cf. Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d

th Cir. 2010) (tolling the 120-day service period while thes motion to proceed in forma pauperis was pending); Robinson v.

Best Contacts Eyeglasses, 876 F.2d 596, 598 (7th Cir. 1989)

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court withrespondents except WLS and Paul Elcano. As for these two

nts, we reverse the judgm ent of the district court and remand3

It is so ORDERED.

3In light of our disposition, we reverse the district court's award ofot be construed as precluding the d istrict

om awarding attorney fees on remand under appropriate

7/29/2019 5 22 13 0204 01955 60302 Order Affirm in Part Reverse in Part and Remanding to 2JDC No Numbers

5/5

s, District JudgeZachary B. CoughlinLipson Neilson Cole Seltzer Garin, P.C.Washoe District Court Clerk