Opinion
No. 55283.
05-11-2011
David HABIAGA and Jacinto Alvarez, Appellants, v. LE MY PHAM and Voung Dat Tien, Respondents.
Jorge G. Corral David L. Riddle & Associates
Jorge G. Corral
David L. Riddle & Associates
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a post-judgment motion for NRCP 60(b) relief in a tort action. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Jerome Polaha, Judge.
On September 27, 2010, attorney Jorge G. Corral filed a substitution of attorneys, notifying this court that he would be replacing Anthony R. Lopez as counsel for appellants. As no counsel is identified on the docket sheet, we direct the clerk of this court to add Corral to the docket sheet as counsel for appellants.
Having considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' NRCP 60(b) motion because appellants failed to promptly move for relief from the judgment against them. See Kahn v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 513, 835 P.2d 790, 792 (1992) (explaining that the district court is afforded broad discretion in ruling on an NRCP 60(b) motion); see also NRCP 60(b) (requiring motions for relief under that rule to be made within a reasonable time). Indeed, although appellants state on appeal that they acted promptly because they filed their NRCP 60(b) motion within the six-month time limit, they provide no cogent argument or citations to authority to support a conclusion that their nearly six-month delay in filing the motion was reasonable. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n. 38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n. 38 (2006) (holding that this court does not need to consider claims that are not cogently argued or supported by relevant authority); see also Kahn, 108 Nev. at 514, 835 P.2d at 793 (concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the appellant, who had waited nearly six months to move for relief from a default judgment, had failed to act promptly).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.