From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Cartlidge

Supreme Court of Nevada
Dec 29, 2005
121 Nev. 926 (Nev. 2005)

Summary

holding that the "delay [in filing an opposition] alone was sufficient grounds for the district court to deem motion unopposed and thus meritorious"

Summary of this case from Benjamin v. Frias Transp. Mgmt. Sys., Inc.

Opinion

No. 43278.

December 29, 2005.

Appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Steven R. Kosach and Peter I. Breen, Judges.

Thomas L. Quails, Reno, for Appellant.

Blaine E. Cartlidge Esq., Reno; Lemons Grundy Eisenberg and Tiffinay Barker Pagni, Reno, for Respondent.

Before DOUGLAS, ROSE and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.


Affirmed.


OPINION


In this appeal, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion in granting respondent's motion for summary judgment because appellant failed to file an opposition within the deadline set by Rule 13(3) of the District Court Rules (DCR) and did not set forth any evidence showing a genuine issue for trial. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and thus affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Blaine Cartlidge sued Maria Marsano in January 2000 for breach of a contract lien. Marsano was represented by appellant Carter King. King was later named as a codefendant in the action. A review of the record on appeal demonstrates that King delayed the prosecution of this action from the time it began in district court. Several instances of King's conduct support this conclusion.

Before being named as a-defendant, King moved for a continuance of the trial date, arguing that a medical condition caused him to oversleep on the day of the trial setting. The district court denied the motion, noting that King's actions "are deplorable by an officer of the court," sanctioning him $250.

The district court expressed its displeasure with King's delays in another order after King had requested an extension of time. The court noted that "King has rarely filed a motion on time in this case," observing that "King seems to be under the impression that this Court and Plaintiff must cater to [King's] erratic schedule and that this action can be delayed as long as it suits Defendant King." Although the court granted King his requested extension, it also warned him that no other extensions would be allowed.

Cartlidge moved for summary judgment on November 15, 2002. King filed a tardy opposition on December 9, 2002, failing to include any evidentiary support. The district court granted Cartlidge's motion. The court noted that King had filed the opposition late, had been granted three continuances since the case began, had failed to provide evidentiary support in any of his numerous motions, and was clearly not ready to pursue the case according to the scheduled trial date approaching in less than a month. King appeals.

DISCUSSION

DCR 13(3) provides that a party opposing a motion shall serve and file a written opposition within ten days after the motion was served, "together with a memorandum of points and authorities and supporting affidavits, if any, stating facts showing why the motion should be denied." If the opposing party fails to serve and file an opposition, the district court has the discretion to construe that failure as an admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the motion.

DCR 13(3).

King filed his opposition twenty-four days after Cartlidge's summary judgment motion was filed, well beyond the ten-day deadline of DCR 13(3). This delay alone was sufficient grounds for the district court to deem Cartlidge's motion unopposed and thus meritorious.

" See, e.g., Nye County v. Washoe Medical Center, 108 Nev. 896, 899-900, 839 P.2d 1312, 1314-15 (1992) (affirming district court's decision granting plaintiffs unopposed motion for summary judgment); see also Walls v. Brewster, 112 Nev. 175, 178, 912 P.2d 261, 263 (1996) (district court acted properly in construing plaintiffs failure to respond to motion to dismiss as admission that motion was meritorious).

In addition, King's tardy opposition violated NRCP 56(e) by failing to include any evidentiary support. A party opposing summary judgment must set forth specific facts by affidavit or other proper evidence indicating there is a genuine issue of material fact. Mere allegations and conclusory statements like those included in King's opposition are insufficient to survive summary judgment.

NRCP 56(e); Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448, 452, 851 P.2d 438, 442 (1993).

"NRCP 56(e); Yeager v. Harrah's Club, Inc., 111 Nev. 830, 833, 897 P.2d 1093, 1094-95 (1995).

The district court's decision to grant Cartlidge's motion is particularly appropriate given King's egregious and dilatory conduct. King's repeated requests for continuances caused delay and frustration throughout the district court proceedings. His opposition failed to comply with the clear requirements of DCR 13(3) and NRCP 56(e). As a result, the district court acted well within its discretion in granting summary judgment in Cartlidge's favor. Accordingly, we affirm the district court order.

We have reviewed King's other claims and conclude they lack merit.


Summaries of

King v. Cartlidge

Supreme Court of Nevada
Dec 29, 2005
121 Nev. 926 (Nev. 2005)

holding that the "delay [in filing an opposition] alone was sufficient grounds for the district court to deem motion unopposed and thus meritorious"

Summary of this case from Benjamin v. Frias Transp. Mgmt. Sys., Inc.

holding that the failure to timely oppose a motion for summary judgment was sufficient grounds for the district court to, in its discretion, "construe that failure as an admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the motion" for summary judgment

Summary of this case from Dickerson v. Downey Brand LLP

holding that, under a rule materially identical to EDCR 2.20(e), a district court has discretion to grant a motion on grounds that it was unopposed

Summary of this case from Szymborski v. Spring Mountain Treatment Ctr.

concluding that "the district court acted well within its discretion in granting summary judgment in [respondent's] favor" under local rules, where the opposing motion was untimely

Summary of this case from Williams v. Clear Recon Corp.

concluding that the grant of a motion for summary judgment as unopposed where the opposing party filed an untimely opposition to the motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion

Summary of this case from Sulzinger v. PNC Bank

recognizing the discretion the DCR analog to EDCR 2.20(e) gives district courts to grant motions that are not properly opposed

Summary of this case from Benjamin v. Frias Transp. Mgmt. Sys., Inc.

recognizing the district court's discretion under the DCR analog to EDCR 2.20(e) to grant motions that are not properly opposed

Summary of this case from Trice v. Huynh

stating that district courts have discretion to consider the failure to oppose a motion as an admission of merit and as consent to grant the motion

Summary of this case from Mortg. Fund IVC Tr. v. Brown

providing the same

Summary of this case from Hines v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp.

providing that when a party fails to oppose a motion, the district court may construe the silence as the party's admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the motion

Summary of this case from Minor v. Wescott

stating that the district court has discretion to consider the failure to oppose a motion as an admission of merit and as consent to granting the motion

Summary of this case from McDonald v. Goli

stating that an unopposed motion may be considered as an admission of merit and consent to grant the motion

Summary of this case from Foster v. Dingwall

reviewing a district court's grant of a motion under a rule identical to EDCR 2.20(e) for an abuse of discretion and concluding that the failure to timely oppose a motion, in and of itself, is a sufficient ground to deem the motion unopposed and therefore meritorious

Summary of this case from Frostick v. Schieck

noting that the decision to dismiss a case for failure to oppose a dispositive motion rests within the district court's discretion and concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment under that rule when the opposition to the summary judgment motion had been untimely filed

Summary of this case from Scott v. Camby

providing that failing to timely file an opposition "alone was sufficient grounds for the district court to deem motion unopposed and thus meritorious"

Summary of this case from Carroll v. Mandel

reviewing a district court order granting summary judgment based on the opposing party's failure to file an opposition under an abuse of discretion standard

Summary of this case from Carroll v. Mandel
Case details for

King v. Cartlidge

Case Details

Full title:CARTER R. KING, ESQ., APPELLANT, v. BLAINE E. CARTLIDGE, ESQ., RESPONDENT

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Dec 29, 2005

Citations

121 Nev. 926 (Nev. 2005)
124 P.3d 1161

Citing Cases

White v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't

Under EDCR 2.20(e), the district court may construe a party's failure to timely oppose a motion for summary…

Kwist v. Chang

EDCR 2.20(c) provides that if a party fails to oppose a motion, the court may construe that “as an admission…