Design 3.2 v. Bank of New York Mellon ( 2015 )

 erroneous interpretation of the controlling law and did not reach the other
issues colorably asserted.' Accordingly, we
REVERSE the order granting summary judgment AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this order.
0
Saitta
ibbons
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 15
James S. Kent
Patrick K. McKnight
Akerman LLP/Las Vegas
Malcolm Cisneros
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Respondent contends that appellant's arguments regarding NRS
116.3116(2) have been waived since appellant failed to raise those
arguments in opposing respondent's motion for summary judgment. We
disagree, as appellant raised those arguments in its July 26, 2012, motion
for declaratory relief, which was part of the district court record when the
district court granted summary judgment in respondent's favor. See Rust
v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987)
(recognizing that "[t]he district court's oral pronouncement from the bench
[or] the clerk's minute order. . . are ineffective for any purpose").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A eio