Yashouafar v. Paradise Spa Owner's Ass'n.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MASSOUD AARON YASHOUAFAR, AN No. 65841
INDIVIDUAL; SOLYMAN YASHOUAFAR,
AN INDIVIDUAL; S & R EQUITIES, L.P.,
A NEVADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
HEXAGON HOLDINGS LIMITED, LP, A
FILED
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; FEB 1 2 2016
THE 4D TRUST, DATED AUGUST 15,
EK. LINDEMAN
2002; MILBANK REALTY GROUP, INC., A - oF_ : es
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; MILBANK AL
--47 in--
RESIDENTIAL REALTY, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; MILBANK
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; MADISON
EQUITIES, L.P., A NEVADA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
Appellants,
vs.
PARADISE SPA OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
INC., A NEVADA NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION; WILLIAM O'DONNELL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF
PARADISE SPA OWNERS' ASSOCIATION;
MARCIA BREON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS TREASURER OF PARADISE SPA
OWNERS' ASSOCIATION; CARY BELKIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS VICE
PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF
PARADISE SPA OWNERS' ASSOCIATION;
AND BEN SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS DIRECTOR ON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF PARADISE SPA
OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion
for NRCP 60(b) relief. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
SUPREME COURT
OF
Ronald J. Israel, Judge.
NEVADA
(0) 1947N (2401.z.
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record, we
perceive no reversible error in the district court's decision not to vacate the
judgment entered against appellants As a threshold matter, we disagree
with appellants' jurisdictional argument, as NRS 38.300(3) specifically
states that a "[c]ivil action. . . . does not include an action in equity for
injunctive relief in which there is an immediate threat of irreparable
harm." Here, the underlying lawsuit was not a "civil action" for purposes
of NRS 38.300-.360 when appellants commenced it because appellants
faced an immediate threat of irreparable harm at that time. Because NRS
38.310 only prohibits "commencement" of a civil action without first
submitting the action to NRED, the district court was not required to
dismiss appellants' underlying action once the preliminary injunction was
dissolved even if appellants' action may arguably have become a "civil
action" for purposes of NRS 38.300-.360 at that point. Moreover, we agree
that the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate respondents'
counterclaims. State v. Capital Convalescent Ctr., 92 Nev. 147, 151-52,
547 P.2d 677, 680 (1976).
We also disagree with appellants' argument that the district
court violated Epstein v. Epstein, 113 Nev. 1401, 1405, 950 P.2d 771, 773
(1997). To the contrary, in their NRCP 60(b) motion, appellants expressly
stated that the district court should treat a March 25, 2014, motion as if it
were appellants' opposition to respondents' February 20, 2014, motion for
partial summary judgment. Thus, we perceive no error in the district
court's decision to treat the March 25 motion as such. We likewise
perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to exclude
the evidence proffered in conjunction with the March 25 motion on the
ground that it had not been timely produced during discovery. See Las
Vegas Metro. Police Dep't v. Yeghiazarian, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 81, 312 P.3d
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
tO) 1947A ate
503, 507 (2013) (observing that the district court has discretion to admit or
exclude proffered evidence); cf. Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 127 Nev.
657, 666, 262 P.3d 705, 712 (2011) (observing that the district court has
discretion to grant or deny a request to reopen discovery); Dornbach v.
Tenth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 33, 324 P.3d 369, 373-74
(2014) (recognizing that district courts have "inherent" case-management
authority). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
fa-s/C°
Fotr
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge
Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge
Barnett Csoka
Solomon Dwiggins & Freer, Ltd.
Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) (947A Cep