From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boren v. City of North Las Vegas

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jan 6, 1982
98 Nev. 5 (Nev. 1982)

Summary

holding that court-ordered stays extend the five-year period

Summary of this case from BR Constr., LLC v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court of State

Opinion

No. 12085

January 6, 1982

Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Grant L. Bowen, J.

Chubb Silverman, Sparks, for Appellants.

George E. Franklin, City Attorney, North Las Vegas, for Respondent.


OPINION


The sole issue we consider in this case is whether an action must be dismissed if it was not brought to trial within five years because of a court order staying proceedings.

The action in the case before us was not brought to trial within the five-year period specified in Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 41(e). Appellant moved to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. The trial court denied the motion. Appellant claims that dismissal is mandatory notwithstanding the fact that proceedings had been stayed for more than four years immediately preceding the motion to dismiss.

We agree with the decision of the trial court. For a court to prohibit the parties from going to trial and then to dismiss their action for failure to bring it to trial is so obviously unfair and unjust as to be unarguable. Appellants agree, but contend that the city as plaintiff had some kind of duty of diligence in seeking vacation of the stay order. The city did move to have the stay order vacated and this was opposed by appellant. We consider this immaterial, however, for we would be hard-pressed to formulate a rule describing the degree of diligence required under such circumstances. Instead we adopt the following rule: Any period during which the parties are prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a stay order shall not be computed in determining the five-year period of Rule 41(e).

Affirmed.

GUNDERSON, C.J., and MANOUKIAN, SPRINGER, and MOWBRAY, JJ., and ZENOFF, Sr. J., concur.

The Chief Justice designated THE HONORABLE DAVID ZENOFF, Senior Justice, to sit in this case in place of THE HONORABLE CAMERON BATJER. Nev. Const., art. 6, § 19; SCR 10.


Summaries of

Boren v. City of North Las Vegas

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jan 6, 1982
98 Nev. 5 (Nev. 1982)

holding that court-ordered stays extend the five-year period

Summary of this case from BR Constr., LLC v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court of State

holding that any period during which the parties are prevented from bringing a case to trial due to a stay order must be excluded when conducting a Rule 41(e) computation

Summary of this case from Woodlands Cmty. Ass'n v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

In Boren, this court "adopt[ed] the following rule: Any period during which the parties are prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a stay order shall not be computed in determining the five-year period of Rule 41(e)."

Summary of this case from High Sierra Ranch Homes Owners Ass'n v. Richard Joseph & Co.

In Boren, our short opinion provided no facts from the case, but we indicated that the district court had stayed the proceedings for more than four years.

Summary of this case from D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

excluding the time during which the parties were prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a court-ordered stay

Summary of this case from Allyn v. McDonald

In Boren, we adopted a rule providing that the time during which the parties are prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a court-ordered stay shall not be included in determining the five-year period under Rule 41(e).

Summary of this case from Baker v. Noback
Case details for

Boren v. City of North Las Vegas

Case Details

Full title:IRVING BOREN AND DIVERSIFIED CAPITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Jan 6, 1982

Citations

98 Nev. 5 (Nev. 1982)
638 P.2d 404

Citing Cases

D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

Firestop contended that the only stay that tolled the five-year rule was the stay entered by this court in…

Rickard v. Montgomery Ward

However, discerning no reason to distinguish between a court ordered stay and the automatic stay imposed by…