Mucinski v. Nolte ( 2014 )

 to enlarge. See Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. ,
, 245 P.M 1198, 1201 (2010) (recognizing that when a motion to
enlarge the time for service is filed after NRCP 4(i)'s 120-day time frame
has expired, the party seeking the enlargement must demonstrate good
cause for failing to timely move for the enlargement). The district court
granted the motion, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant contends that the district court abused
its discretion in granting respondent's motion to dismiss. Id. at , 245
P.3d at 1200 (explaining that this court reviews a district court order
granting a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process or to timely
move for an enlargement for an abuse of discretion). We agree. The only
reason identified by the district court regarding why it found an absence of
good cause for appellant's failure to timely move for an enlargement was
that respondent was prejudiced. Even assuming that respondent was
prejudiced, this factor is not relevant to the consideration of whether good
cause existed for appellant's failure to timely move for an enlargement.
See id. at , 245 P.3d at 1201 (identifying several relevant factors and
indicating that any other factor a district court considers when
determining whether good cause exists for filing an untimely enlargement
motion should "relate to difficulties encountered by a party in attempting
service").
In contrast, the record on appeal demonstrates that the
relevant factors weigh in favor of the existence of good cause for
...continued
that these reasons could provide alternative bases for affirmance. See
Ford v. Showboat Operating Co., 110 Nev. 752, 755, 877 P.2d 546, 548
(1994). Thus, we need not consider these issues.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
appellant's failure to timely file her enlargement motion. Specifically,
respondent had knowledge of the lawsuit's existence, and appellant
exercised reasonable diligence to serve respondent within the 120-day
time frame upon learning midway through the time frame that
respondent's insurer no longer planned to represent respondent in the
underlying action. Id. (recognizing that a defendant's knowledge of the
action and a plaintiffs diligence in attempting service are relevant
factors). Moreover, appellant's failure to formally file the motion in a
timely manner was due in part to her belief that she was following "local
practice" in submitting the motion directly to chambers and due in further
part to the court's own delay in granting the motion. Because it was
reasonable for appellant to seek a ruling on her motion before continuing
her attempts to serve respondent, this consideration likewise supports the
existence of good cause. Id.
Thus, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion
when it found that appellant lacked good cause for failing to timely file her
enlargement motion. Id. at , 245 P.3d at 1200. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
Hardesty
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
OD 1947A
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
Howard Roitman, Settlement Judge
James S. Kent
Law Office of Daniel Marks
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A