Aymann v. Peterson ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  toward appellant. Appellant also argues that the chief district court judge
    is "strongly pro-woman" and "is not competent or qualified" to oversee the
    dispute between appellant and the district court judge, and therefore
    should not have decided the motion to disqualify. Having reviewed
    appellant's pro se opening brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that
    appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
    denying his disqualification motion.         Goldman v. Bryan, 
    104 Nev. 644
    ,
    649, 
    764 P.2d 1296
    , 1299 (1988) (holding that this court reviews orders
    denying disqualification for a clear abuse of discretion, that judges are
    "presumed not to be biased," and the party seeking disqualification bears
    the burden of proving that disqualification is warranted), disavowed on
    other grounds by Halverson. v. Hardcastle, 
    123 Nev. 245
    , 
    163 P.3d 428
    (2007). Thus, Judge Kishner properly remained assigned to the
    underlying matter and no relief is warranted with regard to the order
    denying the motion to disqualify.'
    Appellant also challenges the district court's dismissal of his
    action for failure to bring it to trial within five years.   See NRCP 41(e). We
    perceive no error in the district court's dismissal of the action as
    appellant's complaint was filed on March 26, 2009, and therefore more
    than five years had passed when the district court dismissed the action on
    September 18, 2014.      See NRCP 41(e); see also Allyn v. McDonald, 
    117 Nev. 907
    , 912, 
    34 P.3d 584
    , 587 (2001) ("Except in very limited
    circumstances, we uphold NRCP 41(e) dismissals without regard to the
    plaintiffs reasons for allowing the mandatory period to lapse."); Great W.
    'Appellant's arguments regarding the chief district court judge are
    unsupported, lack merit, and do not provide a basis for relief.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1047A    e
    Land & Cattle Corp v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    86 Nev. 282
    , 285, 
    467 P.2d 1019
    , 1021 (1970) ("Rule 41, as written and construed, does not
    contemplate an examination of the equities. Any other construction
    would destroy the mandatory 5-year dismissal rule and make the
    determination a matter of trial court discretion."). As appellant has not
    demonstrated any basis for reversal in Docket No. 66774, we affirm the
    district court's dismissal of appellant's action. 2 The appeal in Docket No.
    66676 is dismissed.
    It is so ORDERED.
    , J.
    Gibbons
    Pickering
    cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge
    James R. Aymann
    Alexander L. Mazzia, Jr.
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    2 In   light of this disposition, appellant's remaining arguments are
    moot.
    SUPREME COLMT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A    er,
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 66676

Filed Date: 12/21/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021