Opinion
No. 55654.
02-10-2012
ONECAP PARTNERS MM, INC., a Nevada Corporation; and Vincent W. Hesser, an Individual, Appellants, v. KENNEDY FUNDING, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Resnondent.
Robert F. Saint–Aubin, Settlement Judge Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd. Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney, Holley & Thompson/Las Vegas
Robert F. Saint–Aubin, Settlement Judge
Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd.
Santoro, Driggs, Walch, Kearney, Holley & Thompson/Las Vegas
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a guaranty contract action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge.
On appeal, appellants challenge the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent based on the guaranty contract. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005). Once the movant has properly supported the summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party may not rest upon general allegations and conclusions, but must instead set forth, by affidavit or otherwise, specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial to avoid summary judgment. NRCP 56(e) ; Wood, 121 Nev. at 731, 121 P.3d at 1030–31. This court reviews an order granting summary judgment de novo. Wood, 121 Nev. at 729, 121 P.3d at 1029.
Having reviewed the briefs and appendices on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment. The district court properly concluded that appellants failed to set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate a material issue of fact to avoid summary judgment. Id. at 729, 731, 121 P.3d at 1029, 1030–31.
We conclude that appellants' argument that the settlement agreement in a separate bankruptcy action between respondent and a third party precluded summary judgment or required the district court to stay this case lacks merit.
Additionally, appellants seek to raise on appeal several statutory arguments that they assert require reversal of the district court's summary judgment and final judgment. These arguments are waived, however, because appellants failed to first raise them in the district court. See Old Aztec Mine. Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (stating that this court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.