Voss v. Valester

 The district court has broad discretion in ruling on NRCP
60(b) motions, and an order denying relief is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Kahn v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 513, 835 P.2d 790, 792 (1992). A
complaint may not be amended when a final judgment has been entered,
unless that judgment is set aside or vacated in accordance with the rules
of civil procedure. SFPP, L.P. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev.
608, 612, 173 P.3d 715, 717 (2007).
Appellant argues that leave to amend should have been
granted under liberal pleading rules. While leave to amend shall be freely
given when justice requires, the trial judge retains discretion to deny a
motion to amend. Stephens v. S. Nev. Music Co., 89 Nev. 104, 105, 507
P.2d 138, 139 (1973). Here, the district court observed that leave to
amend was only sought after the original complaint had been dismissed
and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal, that the dismissal had not been
otherwise set aside or vacated, and that appellant's NRCP 60(b) motion for
relief was extremely untimely. Thus, we discern no abuse in the district
court's exercise of its discretion. SFPP, L.P., 123 Nev. at 612, 173 P.3d at
717; Kahn, 108 Nev. at 513, 835 P.2d at 792; Connell v. Carl's Air
Conditioning, 97 Nev. 436, 439, 634 P.2d 673, 675 (1981).
Appellant also argues that the district court failed to consider
NRCP 60(b)(5) in evaluating appellant's motion because the district
court's judgment could not be construed as equitable. Appellant
misconstrues this rule, which addresses equity with respect to an
injunction's prospective application and does not provide general relief
from inequitable judgments. NRCP 60(b)(5). This appeal and appellant's
underlying case do not involve an injunction or any other basis for
implicating NRCP 60(b)(5). Consequently, we conclude that the district
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order relief under NRCP
60(b)(5). Kahn, 108 Nev. at 513, 835 P.2d at 792. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
J.
Parraguirre
Saitta
cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge
Steven Floyd Voss
Attorney General/Carson City
Pershing County Clerk
'We have considered appellant's other arguments, including
appellant's argument regarding NRCP 60(a) and claim preclusion, and
conclude that they do not warrant reversal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A