Opinion
No. 68180
09-16-2016
KIMBERLY A. MAXSON, Appellant, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION HEARING AND APPEALS DIVISION; MOSAIC SALES SOLUTIONS; THE HARTFORD; KEVIN L. JOHNSON, ESQ.; AND JENNIFER LEONESCU, ESQ., Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Judge.
The district court dismissed the petition under NRS 233B.130(2)(a) for failure to name the Division of Industrial Relations, a party of record in the underlying administrative agency proceedings, in the petition for judicial review. See Washoe Cty. v. Otto, 128 Nev. 424, 432, 282 P.3d 719, 725 (2012) (explaining that a petitioner seeking judicial review of an administrative decision must strictly comply with the Administrative Procedure Act's jurisdictional procedural requirements, including NRS 233B.130(2)(a)'s naming requirement). On appeal, appellant makes extensive arguments that the underlying proceedings were tainted by fraud and other misconduct at every level.
But appellant's only contention addressing the dismissal order is that the district court fraudulently stated that she failed to name the Division of Industrial Relations of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry and, instead, named only the Division's attorney, Jennifer Leonescu. In the caption of the petition for judicial review, the Nevada Department of Business and Industry was listed immediately below Leonescu's name, and one address was listed for both entities, giving the impression that Leonescu was the named party and the Department of Business and Industry was only identifying information relating to Leonescu. Thus, we reject Maxson's assertion that the district court's conclusion that Leonescu was the only named party was fraudulent.
Moreover, to the extent she asserts that the conclusion that she failed to name the Division of Industrial Relations was false because she named the Department of Business and Industry, Maxson has not provided any cogent argument to demonstrate that naming the Department of Business and Industry was sufficient to name the Division of Industrial Relations as a party to the petition for judicial review. As a result, we decline to consider this assertion further. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (explaining that an appellate court need not consider issues not supported by cogent argument on appeal). And because appellant has not demonstrated that the district court wrongly found that she had failed to name the Division of Industrial Relations, we affirm the court's order finding that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissing the petition for judicial review for failure to properly name all parties of record. See NRS 233B.130(2)(a); Otto, 128 Nev. at 432, 282 P.3d at 725.
Because we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's petition for judicial review for lack of jurisdiction, we need not reach her remaining appellate arguments. Moreover, we deny all requests for relief currently pending in this appeal. --------
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge
Kimberly A. Maxson
Dep't of Business and Industry/
Div. of Industrial Relations/Henderson
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk