Opinion
87051-COA
02-15-2024
CEDRIC GREENE, Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Cedric Greene appeals from a district court order dismissing his case. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jessica K. Peterson, Judge.
Greene, who is seemingly a California resident, initiated the underlying action against respondent San Diego County Superior Court in the Eighth Judicial District Court based on events related to a small claims action Greene was involved in in the San Diego court. After several filings by Greene, including an affidavit purporting to attest that the San Diego court was electronically served with the summons and complaint, the district court issued a minute order indicating that Greene's case was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Greene then filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision, but the district court entered an order denying that motion and dismissing Greene's case with prejudice. In so doing, the court held, among other things, that it lacked jurisdiction over the case given that the San Diego court is a public government entity of the State of California, and thus, it cannot be sued in a Nevada state court under Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, 587 U.S.__, 139 S.Ct. 1485 (2019). This appeal followed.
On appeal, Greene first summarily asserts that, because California declared him a vexatious litigant, the instant case somehow cannot be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. But Greene offers no explanation or argument on this point beyond his summary assertion, and thus, we need not consider it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (declining to consider issues that are not supported by cogent argument). Moreover, in his informal brief, Greene fails to address, or even acknowledge, the district court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case because the San Diego court is a State of California government entity, and therefore it cannot be sued in a Nevada court. Thus, he has waived any challenge to that determination. See Hung u. Genting Berhad, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 50, 513 P.3d 1285, 1288 (Ct. App. 2022) (holding that when a district court provides independent and alternative grounds to support its ruling the appellant must properly challenge all of the grounds, otherwise the ruling will be affirmed); Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that "[i]ssues not raised in an appellant's opening brief are deemed waived.").
Based on the foregoing analysis, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
insofar as Greene raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered these arguments and conclude that they need not be addressed given our resolution of this matter.
Gibbons, J., Bulla, J., Westbrook, J.
Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge