Opinion
82621-COA
02-04-2022
DENNIS BAHAM, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellant, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWALT, INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-2, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-2, Respondents.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
GIBBONS, C.J.
Dennis Baham appeals from a district court order dismissing complaints seeking injunctive relief. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nadia Krall, Judge.
Baham filed an amended notice of appeal identifying the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration, which the court entered after Baham had already filed the notice of appeal from the dismissal order. But an order denying reconsideration is not substantively appealable, and it is only reviewable on appeal from a final judgment when it was filed before the notice of appeal. Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 416-17, 168 P.3d 1050, 1054 (2007). We therefore do not reach Baham's arguments concerning the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
Baham filed two complaints seeking injunctive relief against respondents to prevent them from foreclosing on his home. The district court consolidated the actions and ultimately granted respondents' motion to dismiss Baham's complaints on multiple grounds, including that they were barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion and that Baham's request for injunctive relief was moot in light of the fact that respondents had already completed their foreclosure sale. The district court also denied Baham's request for leave to amend, concluding amendment would be futile. This appeal followed.
In his informal brief, Baham wholly fails to address the aforementioned legal grounds relied upon by the district court in dismissing the action; instead, he sets forth various reasons why he believes respondents lacked authority to foreclose. In light of Baham's failure to set forth any argument whatsoever concerning the specific grounds relied upon by the district court, he fails to demonstrate that reversal is warranted, see Powell v. Liberty Mat. Fire Ins, Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived); Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (providing that the appellate courts need not consider claims unsupported by cogent argument); see also AED, Inc. v. KDC In v. LLC, 307 P.3d 176, 181 (Idaho 2013) (providing that when a district court sets forth multiple grounds for its decision, the appellant must successfully challenge all of them in order to prevail), and we necessarily
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Tao, Bulla, Judges
Hon. Nadia Krall, District Judge