IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
WORLD CLASS, LLC, A NEVADA No. 81537
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
JEFFREY R. BAGG, AN INDIVIDUAL,
Appellants,
vs.
CRAIG DRUCKER, INDIVIDUALLY, FILED
AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE GRYPHON
TRUST DATED JANUARY 17, 2003; JUL 0 9 2021
AND ZIA TRUST INC., CUSTODIAN ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK)* UPREME COURT
FOR THERESA A. GLASS IRA #972900, BY.
DEPUTY CLERK
Res • ondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a
contract action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan
Johnson, Judge.'
When appellants defaulted on a loan, respondents began
foreclosure proceedings on the loan's collateral and appellants filed the
underlying contract dispute. In response to respondents motion to dismiss
the action, appellants sought leave to amend the complaint but did not
include a copy of their proposed amended complaint. After the district court
permitted limited discovery, appellants filed an amended complaint but
withdrew it because they did not have respondents' consent or leave of court
to file it. See NRCP 15(a)(2) (providing that after a responsive pleading has
'Pursuant to NRAP 3401), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted.
been filed, a party may amend a pleading "only with the opposing party's
written consent or the court's leave). Appellants then orally requested
leave to amend the complaint but once again did not provide a proposed
amended complaint to the court. The district court denied the request and
entered summary judgment in respondents favor.2
Appellants do not challenge the substance of the district court's
summary judgment; therefore, we do not address the contents of that
judgment. See Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3,
252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that issues not raised on appeal are
deemed waived). Instead, appellants argue that the district court abused
its discretion entering summary judgment without first allowing them leave
to amend their complaint. We review for an abuse of discretion, Whealon v.
Sterling, 121 Nev. 662, 665,
119 P.3d 1241, 1244 (2005), and disagree, see
Stephen.s v. S. Nev. Music Co., 89 Nev. 104, 105,
507 P.2d 138, 139 (1973)
(acknowledging that the district court may, "in a proper case, deny a motion
to amend"). Appellants did not provide the district court with a proposed
amended complaint when they made their written motion or their oral
motion to amend as required by EDCR 2.30(a) (A copy of the proposed
amended pleading must be attached to any motion to amend the pleading.").
Additionally, appellants' written and oral motions failed to sufficiently
explain to the court what the amended complaint would accomplish or show
2 Respondents' motion to dismiss alternatively sought summary
judgment pursuant to NRCP 56 because they presented matters outside the
pleadings. See NRCP 12(d) (explaining that when the district court
considers matters outside the pleadings when ruling on a motion to dismiss,
"the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 44gep
that the amendment would not be futile. See Adamson v. Bowker, 85 Nev.
115, 121,
450 P.2d 796, 801 (1969) ("Where there is no showing of the nature
or substance of the proposed amendment or what the appellant expects to
accomplish by it, a reviewing court cannot say a trial court abused its
discretion in denying leave to amend."); see also Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 394, 398,
302 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2013)
(observing that "leave to amend should not be granted if the proposed
amendment would be futile). For these reasons, we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion when it denied appellants leave to amend
their complaint .3
Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion denying
appellants request to delay ruling on respondents' motion to allow
appellants to file a motion for leave to amend their complaint. See
Summerfield v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of the Sw., 113 Nev. 1291, 1295,
948
P.2d 704, 706 (1997) (reviewing district court's decision whether to grant a
continuance for an abuse of discretion). As discussed above, appellants
failed to properly seek leave to amend their complaint, and the district court
had already delayed ruling on respondents' motion to allow discovery and
3To the extent appellants suggest their failure to provide a copy of
their proposed amended complaint should be excused because the district
court could look to their previously withdrawn first amended complaint, we
decline to address that argument. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest.,
122 Nev. 317, 330 n. 38,
130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (providing that an
appellant must "cogently argue, and present relevant authority, in support
of his appellate concerne).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ,s41110m.
supplemental briefing, during which time appellants did not file a motion
to amend. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.4
, C•J•
Hardesty
J.
-C2463‘1.1
Parraguirre
Sr. J.
cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge
Stephen E. Haberfeld, Settlement Judge
Hurtik Law & Associates
Holley Driggs/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
4The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I947A 44/DII4
