Opinion
87772-COA
08-02-2024
CEDRIC GREENE, Appellant, v. ACCESS SERVICES INC., Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Gibbons C.J.
Cedric Greene appeals from a district court order denying a motion to change the place of trial. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nancy L. Allf, Judge.
Greene filed the underlying action against respondent Access Services, Inc., seeking injunctive relief and damages related to his efforts to obtain some form of identification from Access Services. Thereafter, Greene submitted a series of filings, including an affidavit of service, a motion for an order authorizing alternate service methods, and a motion to change the place of trial. In seeking to transfer his case from the Eighth Judicial District Court to either the First or Second Judicial Districts, Greene alleged that the Eighth Judicial District Court provided bad "customer service," that his submissions were not processed in a timely fashion while those of opposing parties were filed the same day, and argued he could not obtain an impartial trial in that court.
The district court later entered an order denying the motion to change the place of trial. In so doing, the court noted, among other things, that the complaint had not been served, and that a hearing was held on the venue change motion, but no one appeared for the hearing. This appeal followed.
We will not overturn a district court's denial of a motion to change the place of trial "absent a manifest abuse of discretion." Sicor, Inc. v. Hutchison, 127 Nev. 904, 911, 266 P.3d 608, 613 (2011).
In seeking to change venue on the basis that he cannot obtain an impartial trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Greene offered only vague assertions regarding alleged processing issues and the court's "customer service." But Greene failed to provide any specific explanation regarding these alleged incidents or illustrate how these events demonstrate that he will be unable to receive an impartial trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (holding that the court need not consider claims that are not cogently argued).
Moreover, to the extent Greene's intent is to suggest that these alleged incidents somehow demonstrate bias against him in the Eighth Judicial District, such that a change of venue should have been granted, this argument does not provide a basis for relief. Cf. Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022) (explaining that unless an alleged bias has its origins in an extrajudicial source, disqualification is unwarranted absent a showing that the judge formed an opinion based on facts introduced during official judicial proceedings and which reflects deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible); In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988) (providing that rulings made during official judicial proceedings generally "do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification"); Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009) (stating that the burden is on the party asserting bias to establish sufficient factual grounds for disqualification), overruled on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 6, 501 P.3d 980, 984 (2022), abrogated in part on other grounds by Killebrew v. State ex rel. Donohue, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 43, 535 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2023).
Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in denying Greene's motion to change the place of trial, see Sicor, 127 Nev. at 911, 266 P.3d at 613, and we therefore affirm the district court's decision.
insofar as Greene raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief.
BULLA J. WESTBROOK J.