Halimi v. Blacketor
| Decision Date | 15 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 18920,18920 |
| Citation | 105 Nev. 105,770 P.2d 531 |
| Parties | Edward M. HALIMI, Appellant, v. H.R. BLACKETOR, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant Halimi sued respondent Blacketor for breach of an option agreement. Halimi had the right under the option agreement to purchase promissory notes along with other security rights and agreements by placing the purchase price in escrow on the second anniversary of the option agreement. Halimi failed to deposit the purchase price on time and Blacketor claimed Halimi thereby forfeited the option pursuant to their agreement. Blacketor moved to dismiss the suit pursuant to NRCP 12. Halimi replied that he was prevented from performing because Blacketor did not deposit additional documents in escrow as he had promised. In his memorandum in opposition to Blacketor's motion Halimi requested additional time to conduct discovery in order to support his contention. The district court refused to allow Halimi additional time for discovery and granted Blacketor summary judgment. This appeal followed.
Halimi contends that the district court abused its discretion by granting Blacketor summary judgment. Specifically, Halimi contends that the district court should have granted him a continuance to conduct discovery in order to gather facts in support of his contention that Blacketor had agreed to deposit other documents into escrow not required by the option agreement. This contention has merit.
In Harrison v. Falcon Products, 103 Nev. 558, 746 P.2d 642 (1987), we held that summary judgment was improper where the appellant had sought additional time to conduct discovery in order to compile facts in support of his position. NRCP 56(f) 1 provides that a district court may order a continuance where the party opposing summary judgment lacks facts supporting his position.
Halimi's request for additional time for discovery in his memorandum in opposition is sufficient for purposes of NRCP 56(f). In addition, less than a year had passed since the complaint and the granting of summary judgment. Furthermore, Halimi's request for additional time is reflective of his diligence in pursuing the action. Cf. Harrison, 103 Nev. at 560, 746 P.2d at 642. ( that less than two years had passed since the filing of the complaint and summary judgment, and that the request...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Wells Cargo, Inc.
...705–06 (1997) ; Ameritrade, Inc. v. First Interstate Bank, 105 Nev. 696, 700, 782 P.2d 1318, 1320 (1989) ; Halimi v. Blacketor, 105 Nev. 105, 106, 770 P.2d 531, 531–32 (1989) ; Harrison v. Falcon Products, 103 Nev. 558, 560, 746 P.2d 642, 042–43 (1987). However, Anderson's argument that the......
-
Wiltsie v. Baby Grand Corp.
...for a district court to grant summary judgment where a request for discovery is made early in the proceedings. See Halimi v. Blacketor, 105 Nev. ----, 770 P.2d 531 (1989); Harrison v. Falcon Products, 103 Nev. 558, 746 P.2d 642 (1987). However, because appellant has no cause of action in th......
-
Aviation Ventures v. Joan Morris, Inc.
...is appropriate only when the movant expresses how further discovery will lead to the creation of a genuine issue of material fact.4 In Halimi v. Blacketor, this court concluded that a district court had abused its discretion when it denied an NRCP 56(f) motion for a continuance and granted ......
-
Ameritrade, Inc. v. First Interstate Bank of Nevada
...since Ameritrade was not a party to any such arrangement which may have existed between the Patels and Stoneridge. In Halimi v. Blacketor, 105 Nev. 105, 770 P.2d 531 (1989), we held that summary judgment was improperly granted where appellant had sought additional time to conduct discovery ......