Ludlow v. Ludlow (Child Custody) ( 2014 )

 contends that appellant admitted below that the parties' reached a
settlement agreement, requested that the district court enforce the
agreement, and did not ask the court for an evidentiary hearing or trial.
This court does not need to consider any argument that is
unsupported by legal authority. Sengel v. IGT, 116 Nev. 565, 573, 2 P.3d
258, 263 (2000); see also Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev.
317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). In the fast track
statement, appellant fails to cite any authority to support his arguments.
In addition, appellant does not identify the settlement terms that he
claims were disputed, and thus, we are unable to adequately evaluate his
argument. Moreover, the record supports respondent's contention that
appellant did not request a trial in the district court.
As appellant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to
relief, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
-4rbstXt J.
Parraguirre Saitta
cc: Hon. Jennifer Elliott, District Judge, Family Court Division
Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge
Sterling Law, LLC
Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A