Opinion
No. 69382
12-11-2017
KARLTON T. GARDNER, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NDOC); JAMES G. COX, DIRECTOR OF THE NDOC; DWIGHT W. NEVEN, WARDEN OF HDSP; JAY BARTH, CORRECTIONAL SGT AT HDSP; TERELL GREGORY, CORRECTIONAL SR, AT HDSP; AND CHAD SMITH, CASEWORKER AT HDSP, Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Karlton T. Gardner appeals from a district court's order dismissing his complaint for failure to comply with NRCP 16.1. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph Hardy, Jr., Judge.
On appeal, Gardner asserts the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his case without prejudice because he failed to schedule and conduct an early case conference within the timeframe established by NRCP 16.1(e)(1) (2005). We disagree.
The Nevada Supreme Court amended NRCP 16.1 after the district court order at issue here. In Re: Proposed Amendments to NRCP 16.1, 16.1(b)(1) and 16.1(e)(1) and (2), ADKT 0511 (Order Amending Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 16.1 and Supplement to Drafter's Note, May 6, 2016). Additionally, although the district court cited the incorrect subsection in its order—NRCP 16.1(e)(3) and not 16.1(e)(1)—such error may only have been typographical and is of no effect as the court stated and applied the substance of the correct subsection in the order.
This court reviews a district court's order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with NRCP 16.1(e) for an abuse of discretion. See Dornbach v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. , , 324 P.3d 369, 373 (2014). Accordingly, this court will reverse a district court's order dismissing a case under NRCP 16.1(e) only if that court "arbitrarily or capriciously exercise[d] its discretion[.]" Id. at _ , 324 P.3d at 373.
First, Gardner argues that in its order, the district court did not properly consider several of the factors articulated in Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 168 P.3d 1050 (2007).The list of factors described in Arnold is "nonexhaustive" and a district court's review of a motion to dismiss under NRCP 16.1(e) is neither bound by nor limited to those factors, let alone a subset of them. See Dornbach, 130 Nev. at, 324 P.3d at 373 (quoting Arnold, 123 Nev. at 415, 168 P.3d at 1053). Further, Gardner's contention that it would be futile to hold an early case conference without giving respondents an opportunity to review the exhibits he inadvertently omitted from his first amended complaint is meritless. Gardner admitted in his motion to supplement his first amended complaint that respondents previously possessed those exhibits, so they did have an opportunity to review them.
At oral argument, Gardner contended that he filed a case conference report within the 240-day window and so he satisfied the requirements of NRCP 16.1. However, the joint case conference report must be filed jointly with the agreement of both parties. NRCP 16.1(c). If the parties cannot agree on the contents of that report, then each party may submit its own case conference report. Id. Still, either kind of case conference report is predicated upon a completed case conference. Id. Here, Gardner filed a case conference report apparently in response to the respondents' motion to dismiss for failure to hold an early case conference per NRCP 16.1. Accordingly, no case conference took place which Gardner could predicate his "case conference report" on. Thus, we conclude Gardner's timely filing of what he calls a "case conference report" cannot ameliorate his failure to hold a case conference at all.
Second, Gardner argues that compelling and extraordinary circumstances warranted extending the deadline to hold an early case conference. The district court considered the circumstances Gardner now argues on appeal and concluded that Gardner had not shown that they were "compelling and extraordinary" such that they supported an extension. See NRCP 16.1(e)(1) (2005). Gardner does not identify any errors in the district court's conclusion on this point, but rather relies upon the procedural facts of the case to demonstrate that he generally complied with court rules. Yet, Gardner does not explain why his compliance with such rules is a dispositive circumstance in reviewing the district court's decision regarding whether to dismiss the action.
Gardner's recitation of the facts of his case, without more, does not demonstrate the district court abused its discretion. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (noting that an appellate court need not consider claims that are not supported with relevant authority). Accordingly, we
We have carefully considered Gardner's other arguments and conclude that they are unpersuasive. --------
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Silver
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Joseph Hardy, Jr., District Judge
Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey & Thompson
Attorney General/Carson City
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Kelly H. Dove
Ann R. Traum, Coordinator, Appellate Litigation Section,
Pro Bono Committee, State Bar of Nevada
Barbara E. Buckley, Executive Director, Legal Aid Center of
Southern Nevada
Eighth District Court Clerk