Charles v. Quality Grading & Paving C/W 63971 ( 2015 )

 based on a summary judgment granted in favor of some of the defendants,
we conclude that these arguments lack merit. See NRCP 41(e) (providing
that when an appeal is taken, and the judgment is reversed on appeal and
remanded for a new trial, the district court must dismiss the action if not
brought to trial within 3 years); see also Monroe ix Columbia Sunrise
Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 123 Nev. 96, 99-101, 158 P.3d 1008, 1010-11 (2007)
(stating that NRCP 41(e) dismissal is mandatory and a summary
judgment qualifies as bringing a case to trial only if the summary
judgment ruling resolved the entire action as to the parties to the motion,
and the plaintiff must continue to advance any unresolved claims to avoid
the five-year rule); Morgan u. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 118 Nev. 315, 320, 43
P.3d 1036, 1039 (2002) (recognizing that an action in the court-annexed
arbitration program could not have proceeded to trial until arbitration
concluded, but rejecting the argument that the time to bring a case to trial
was tolled as a result); Allyn u. 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. Land & Cattle Corp u. 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."). We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of
appellant's action.
Appellant also challenges the district court's award of attorney
fees and costs to respondents Lance and Kelly McDade and the handling of
respondent Quality Grading & Paving, Inc.'s claims against appellant,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
which were initially filed in Henderson Justice Court. Having reviewed
appellant's arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and
costs to the McDades. See Gunderson v. DS. Horton, Inc., 130 Nev. ,
, 319 P.3d 606, 615 (2014) (stating that this court generally reviews the
district court's decision regarding attorney fees for an abuse of discretion).
And while appellant argues that Quality Grading did not file a proper
counterclaim against him in the district court, the record shows that the
Henderson Justice Court action was transferred to the district court and
was consolidated with appellant's action. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge
Jeffrey Charles
Shawn L. Morris, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A .°