OPINION
On August 29, 1979, appellant Borders Electronic Co., Inc., a foreign corporation, and the four above-named individual nonresident appellants filed a complaint against respondent John Quirk. Thereafter, appellants filed a substantially similar amended complaint. On November 9, 1979, respondent sеrved *206 notice upon each nonresident appеllant that surety for costs would be required pursuant to NRS 18.130. 1
On Decеmber 18, 1979, 39 days after service upon appellants, resрondent moved to dismiss the compláint for failure to file the сost bond. Appellants made an untimely filing of a cost bond оn December 28, 1979, but did not seek leave of court to file lаte. After a hearing on respondent’s motion, the district court dismissed appellants’ complaint with prejudice. This aрpeal followed.
NRS 18.130(1) allows a defendant to require а nonresident plaintiff to file security for costs. NRS 18.130(4) sets a time limit for filing a cost bond:
After the lapse of 30 days from the service of notice that security is required, or of an order for nеw or additional security, upon proof thereof, and thаt no undertaking as required has been filed, the court or judge may order the action to be dismissed. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, whеther to dismiss a complaint for untimely filing of the undertaking is a discrеtionary determination to be made by the trial judge. Sec Fourchier v. McNeil Const. Co.,
In Fourchier, a complaint was filed by 40 plаintiffs, one of whom was a Nevada resident. The general rulе is that no cost bond may be required if at least one plаintiff is a resident. Assuming incorrectly that this rule applied, the 39 nonresident plaintiffs believed that no cost bond could be required or, in the alternative, that one cost bond would be sufficiеnt for all of them. The nonresident plaintiffs timely filed one cost bond. However, since each plaintiff had a sepаrate and distinct cause of action, they each shоuld have filed a cost bond. Without giving the nonresident plaintiffs an оpportunity to correct their good faith error, the district court dismissed the complaint as to all but the one residеnt plaintiff. On appeal, this court held that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion.
*207 The instant case lacks the compelling facts of Fourchier. Here, there was no good faith misunderstanding. Rather, appellants simply neglected to comply with the 30-day time limit. The only excuse offered for the 19-day delay in filing security for costs was that due to the press of other business their New York attorney was unable to contact them sooner. Appellants never sought an extension оf time within which to file the cost bond, either before or after the 30-day limit passed. Under these circumstances, we cаnnot say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Affirmed.
Notes
NRS 18.130(1) provides in pertinent part:
“When a plaintiff in an action resides оut of the state, or is a foreign corporation, security for the costs and charges which may be awarded against such plaintiff may be required by the defendant, by the filing and service on plaintiff of a written demand therefor within the time limited for answering the complaint.”