Opinion
No. 77762-COA
08-12-2020
Alexander OCASIO, an Individual, Appellant, v. SHANDER INTERNATIONAL LLC; and International Asset Managers, Inc., Respondents.
Alexander Ocasio Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, LLC
Alexander Ocasio
Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, LLC
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Alexander Ocasio appeals from a final judgment pursuant to a short trial jury verdict in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge.
In the proceedings below, Ocasio filed a complaint against respondents and the matter was sent to the court annexed arbitration program. After an arbitrator found in favor of respondents, Ocasio filed a request for trial de novo and the matter proceeded through the short trial program. A jury found in favor of respondents and a judgment was entered in favor of respondents and against Ocasio. After entry of the judgment on the jury verdict, Ocasio objected to the judgment, challenging the award of attorney fees and costs to respondent and the award of the short trial judge's fees and costs. The district court ultimately amended the judgment, capping the award of attorney fees and costs at $3000 and striking the award of the short trial judge's fees and costs pursuant to NSTR 28(d). This appeal from the amended judgment followed.
On appeal, Ocasio challenges the jury verdict, raising several issues. First, Ocasio asserts that the short trial judge was biased against him, as demonstrated by the court's rulings. But "rulings and actions of a judge during the course of official judicial proceedings do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification." In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988). And we presume judges are unbiased. Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009). Based on our review of the record, Ocasio's general allegation that the short trial judge was biased against him is not supported. Thus, we cannot conclude that Ocasio has overcome the presumption that judges are unbiased or that a new trial is warranted on these grounds. See id.
Next, Ocasio contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to strike respondents’ answer as untimely and his motion for a default judgment on the same basis. Ocasio asserts that the district court incorrectly concluded that he was required to obtain his default judgment from the clerk instead of from a judge or jury. Contrary to Ocasio's assertions, our review of the record indicates that the district court correctly concluded Ocasio failed to obtain an entry of default from the clerk before seeking a default judgment from the district court. See NRCP 55(a) ; see also Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. 175, 189, 251 P.3d 163, 172 (2011) (explaining that when a defendant has appeared in an action, to obtain a default judgment pursuant to NRCP 55(b)(2), "a party must inquire into the opposing party's intent to proceed, and once default is entered and before seeking a default judgment, the party must serve a three-day notice" of intent to seek a default judgment). Based on the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's decisions.
The Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure were amended effective March 1, 2019. In re Creating a Comm. to Update & Revise the Nev. Rules of Civil Procedure, ADKT 0522 (Order Amending the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Nevada Electronic Filing and Conversion Rules, December 31, 2018). Accordingly, we cite the prior version of the rules herein.
Ocasio also challenges a variety of procedural and evidentiary rulings by the short trial judge, but he failed to raise these issues below. See NSTR 3(d) (requiring objections to a proposed judgment on a jury verdict in a short trial to be filed within ten days after written notice of the proposed judgment is served). We note that Ocasio did file an objection, albeit an untimely one, but only raised issues regarding attorney fees, short trial fees, and costs. Thus, Ocasio's arguments concerning the procedural and evidentiary rulings have been waived. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) ("A point not urged in the trial court ... is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal.").
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Insofar as Ocasio raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition of this appeal.