CERVANTES-GUEVARA v. DIST. CT. (ANDERSON)
2022 NV 10
| Nev. | 2022Background
- Cervantes-Guevara sued Anderson and Thor Development, LLC for a 2018 motor-vehicle incident, filing the complaint on January 7, 2020.
- NRCP 4(e) requires service within 120 days; that service period expired May 6, 2020.
- After unsuccessful personal-service attempts through March 8, 2020, the Governor declared a COVID-19 emergency (Mar. 12, 2020) and issued Emergency Directive 009 (Revised) (Apr. 1, 2020), which tolled “specific time limits set by state statute or regulation” for commencing legal actions.
- Cervantes-Guevara moved May 6, 2020 for a 90-day extension and leave to serve by publication; the district court granted an extension to September 3, 2020. She did not publish the required notice until October 15, 2020.
- Cervantes-Guevara filed a second motion to enlarge time on October 28, 2020 (seeking extension to December 23, 2020); the district court denied the second motion as untimely and later dismissed Anderson as a defendant. Cervantes-Guevara petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Emergency Directive 009 (Revised) tolled the NRCP 4(e) service deadline | ED009 tolled “specific time limits” and should apply to NRCP 4(e) deadlines because NRCPs are regulations governing commencement/processing of civil actions | Court rules are not "statutes or regulations" within ED009's tolling language; ED009 applies to executive-branch statutes/regulations, not this court's rules | ED009 does not apply to court rules; it did not toll NRCP 4(e) service deadline |
| Whether Cervantes-Guevara’s second motion to enlarge time (filed Oct 28, 2020) was timely | The tolling meant the service period recommenced Aug 1 and remaining time plus first 90-day extension made the Oct 28 filing timely | The first extension expired Sept 3, 2020, so the Oct 28 motion was filed ~55 days after the deadline and therefore untimely | Second motion was untimely under NRCP 4(e) because the prior extension ended Sept 3, 2020 |
| Whether Cervantes-Guevara showed good cause for the late second motion and whether the denial/dismissal was an abuse of discretion | ED009 and COVID restrictions justified delay; she acted diligently in attempting service | She ceased personal-service attempts after March 8 and did not begin publication until Oct 15 despite leave to do so in June; she failed to show good cause | Court did not manifestly abuse its discretion: Cervantes-Guevara failed to demonstrate good cause and district court properly denied the late motion and dismissed Anderson |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 179 P.3d 556 (2008) (mandamus availability and appeal adequacy principles)
- NuVeda, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 495 P.3d 500 (2021) (mandamus review limited to manifest abuse of discretion)
- Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 245 P.3d 1198 (2010) (standard for reviewing dismissal for failure to effect timely service)
- Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000) (definition of final judgment and remaining claims affect appealability)
- Smith v. Zilverberg, 481 P.3d 1222 (2021) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs)
- Slade v. Caesars Entm't Corp., 132 Nev. 374, 373 P.3d 74 (2016) (harmonizing rules and statutes in interpretation)
- Mona v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 132 Nev. 719, 380 P.3d 836 (2016) (appropriate use of writ review when important legal issue needs clarification)