Christensen v. Young ( 2013 )

 that the district court construe those third-party claims as counterclaims.
As a result, appellant has waived this argument, and we will not consider
it for the first time on appeal. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev.
49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (stating that this court will not consider
an argument raised for the first time on appeal); see also Cuzze v. Univ. &
Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007)
(providing that appellant has the duty to present a complete record on
appeal, and this court will presume that matters not in the record support
the district court's decision).
Finally, because the district court properly concluded that the
third-party complaint contained improper direct claims against
respondents, rather than the required contribution and indemnity claims,
and correctly dismissed the entirety of the third-party complaint on that
basis, we need not consider appellant's arguments pertaining to the initial
dismissals of certain individual causes of action contained in the third-
party complaint. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED."
Dougla.s
a r.••••••ss•(
j
Saitta
'We deny respondent D. Kevin DeGraw's request for the imposition
of sanctions against appellant.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
GIBBONS, J., dissenting:
I would reverse the district court's decision and remand this
matter to the district court to determine whether, under the circumstances
of this case, appellant should be granted leave to amend his third-party
complaint to present counterclaims against respondents. Accordingly, I
must respectfully dissent.
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
William C. Turner, Settlement Judge
Christensen Law Offices, LLC
Cyrus D. Homayouni
D. Kevin DeGraw
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A