Parkinson v. Bernstein C/W 61089 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                 litigation practices.   Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Bid., Inc., 
    106 Nev. 88
    , 92,
    
    787 P.2d 777
    , 779 (1990). Where the sanction imposed is within the power
    of the district court, "this court will not reverse the particular sanctions
    imposed absent a showing of abuse of discretion." 
    Id.
    Having considered the parties' arguments and appendices and
    the district court's May 1, 2013, order of dismissal, we conclude that the
    district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's action.
    The record shows that the district court ordered the parties to coordinate a
    date to set an evidentiary hearing regarding the witness tampering
    allegation, but that appellant instead provided the district court with a
    proposed summary order dismissing his claims without requesting any
    such hearing. By failing to work to schedule the evidentiary hearing as
    directed by the district court, failing to object when the hearing was not
    set, and by affirmatively providing the district court with an order of
    dismissal before any such hearing was held, we conclude that appellant
    waived any right to an evidentiary hearing.     See Mahban v. MGM Grand
    Hotels, Inc., 
    100 Nev. 593
    , 596, 
    691 P.2d 421
    , 423 (1984) (concluding that
    "[a] waiver may be implied from conduct which evidences an intention to
    waive a right, or by conduct which is inconsistent with any other intention
    than to waive the right"); see also Hudson v. Horsehoe Club Operating Co.,
    
    112 Nev. 446
    , 457, 
    916 P.2d 786
    , 792 (1996). And because appellant only
    challenged the order awarding costs on the basis that it should be reversed
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    if the dismissal order was reversed, we conclude that appellant has not
    provided any basis for reversing the cost award.       See Edwards v.
    Emperor's Garden Rest., 
    122 Nev. 317
    , 330 n.38, 
    130 P.3d 1280
    , 1288 n.38
    (2006) (explaining that this court need not consider claims that are not
    cogently argued or supported by relevant authority).
    Based on the foregoing, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1
    ugg-sc
    Hardesty
    Douglas
    cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
    William C. Turner, Settlement Judge
    Sterling Law, LLC
    Cobeaga Law Firm
    Law Office of Martin Stanley
    Christensen Law Offices, LLC
    Prince & Keating, LLP
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    'In light of this order, we disapprove and deny the parties'
    stipulation and joint motion for confession of error.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A aftpa,