Hunter v. Gang

• Decision Date: 07 April 2016
• Docket Number: Nos. 59691,63804.,s. 59691
• Citation: 377 P.3d 448,132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22
• Parties: Richard A. HUNTER, an Individual, Appellant, v. William GANG, an Individual, Respondent. Richard A. Hunter, an Individual, Appellant, v. William Gang, an Individual, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Court of Appeals

377 P.3d 448

132 Nev. Adv. Op. 22

Richard A. HUNTER, an Individual, Appellant

v.William GANG, an Individual, Respondent.

Richard A. Hunter, an Individual, Appellant

v.William Gang, an Individual, Respondent.

Nos. 59691

63804.

Court of Appeals of Nevada.

April 7, 2016.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP, and Mark E. Ferrario and Tami D. Cowden, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Marquis Aurbach Coffing and Albert G. Marquis and Tye S. Hanseen, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

Before GIBBONS, C.J., TAO and SILVER, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, GIBBONS

, C.J.:

These are consolidated appeals from a district court order dismissing an action with prejudice for want of prosecution and a post-judgment award of attorney fees and costs. Under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure and the court's inherent authority, a district court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution. NRCP 41(e)

; Moore v. Cherry, 90 Nev. 390, 393, 528 P.2d 1018, 1020 (1974). In this opinion, we address whether the district court abused its discretion in dismissing an action with prejudice for want of prosecution before the two-year time period in NRCP 41(e) expired and before the defendant filed an answer or other responsive pleading under NRCP 12. We also consider whether the district court erred in reaching its findings of fact on which it based its conclusions of law and whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs.

Our review of the record does not reveal any evidence to support the district court's findings of fact on which it based its conclusions of law and decision to dismiss the action with prejudice. As a result, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action with prejudice. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's decision to dismiss the action with prejudice, vacate the subsequent order awarding attorney fees and costs, and remand the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

These consolidated appeals arise out of a property dispute between neighbors.¹ In 1980, appellant Richard Hunter acquired his property. To prevent flooding on his property caused by water run-off from an adjoining property, he sought his neighbor's permission to build a berm on her property. According to Hunter, the neighbor agreed, and in 1983, Hunter constructed the berm, which he asserts he continually maintained thereafter.

Around 2002, respondent William Gang acquired the same adjoining property with, according to Hunter, knowledge of the berm's existence. In 2009, Hunter attempted to sell his property, but was purportedly unsuccessful because of concerns raised by the potential buyer with regard to encroachments on Gang's property, including the berm. As a result, a dispute over the berm began, causing Hunter to initiate the lawsuit underlying this appeal.

Hunter's December 4, 2009, verified complaint asserted claims to quiet title and for adverse possession and sought injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the portion of Gang's property where Hunter built the berm. After Hunter filed the complaint, the parties met to discuss a possible settlement. During those negotiations, Hunter granted Gang an open extension of time to respond to the complaint. According to Gang, settlement negotiations then “broke down” in August 2010.

Despite this claimed lack of progress in settlement negotiations, Gang asserts that he continued to send settlement correspondence to Hunter through August 2011. Specifically, Gang claims he sent settlement correspondence to Hunter on four separate occasions between September and November 2010. In response to those four inquiries, Gang asserts Hunter's counsel responded once in November 2010, but the response indicated only that Hunter was traveling and that counsel would attempt to obtain an answer from him. Gang claims he did not receive any response thereafter, so he then sent an additional six settlement inquiries to Hunter between December 2010 and August 2011. Gang claims Hunter's counsel did not respond until August 2011, and then only indicated that counsel was on vacation and would not speak to Hunter until the following week. Gang maintains he did not receive any further correspondence from Hunter and, as a result, informed Hunter he would move for dismissal. Hunter disputes Gang's version of events, asserting that the parties were discussing settlement proposals, and Hunter was therefore operating under the impression that the parties would settle the case, up until the time Gang filed his motion to dismiss.

Gang moved to dismiss Hunter's action with prejudice for want of prosecution on August 11, 2011—20 months after Hunter filed his complaint. The two-page motion contained a short statement of facts, claiming settlement negotiations “broke down over a year ago and Hunter became unresponsive for extended periods of time.” Gang further asserted that he had attempted frequent contact with Hunter but that Hunter had failed to “resolve the matter or move forward with litigation.” Gang did not file an affidavit or declaration to support his factual contentions.² Further, Gang did not identify the specific legal authority under which he sought dismissal. He did, however, cite to cases that identify the court's express authority under NRCP 41(e)

to dismiss an action that a plaintiff has not brought to trial within two years, as well as cases discussing the court's inherent authority to dismiss an action for want of prosecution.

Hunter opposed the motion, arguing that dismissal was premature because the two-year time period in NRCP 41(e)

had not passed. Alternatively, Hunter argued that if the district court considered entertaining the motion to dismiss, it should excuse any delay because he was having health issues. Specifically, Hunter explained that he had “been suffering from serious medical conditions that interfere[d] with his ability to focus on this litigation” and that his ailments “made it impossible for [him to] pursue th[e] matter until his health improve[d].” Hunter also attached an affidavit from his wife, which stated that since early 2009, Hunter had “been suffering from a series of health related problems, including heart problems, a series of mini strokes

that resulted in the temporary loss of eyesight, pneumonia and ... dangerously high blood pressure.”

At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Gang acknowledged that he was aware of Hunter's ill health³ but noted that nearly two years had elapsed in the case and argued that Hunter was utilizing the lawsuit as leverage to pressure Gang into selling his property. Specifically, Gang asserted that Hunter wanted a portion of his property because a potential buyer had declined to purchase Hunter's property due to encroachments on Gang's property. Gang also alleged that Hunter had encroached onto another neighbor's property, as well as onto Gang's property again after he filed his complaint. Gang concluded his argument by requesting the district court to dismiss the case, at a minimum, without prejudice.

In response, Hunter argued that two years had not elapsed in the action and that Gang failed to cite a single case that supported a dismissal before two years. Hunter further emphasized his ill health and his counsel indicated that, because of Hunter's ill health, he had found it difficult to discuss the case with Hunter. Hunter explained that the sale with the potential buyer failed because Gang provided inaccurate information to the buyer regarding certain encroachments and asserted that he intended to amend his complaint accordingly. Hunter further questioned why Gang had not pursued any action to remove the alleged encroachments. Finally, Hunter asked the district court to permit the case to proceed and suggested a settlement conference in order to facilitate the process.

The hearing lasted only nine minutes. The district court did not hear witness testimony or receive any evidence to supplement Hunter's verified complaint or his wife's affidavit, or to support Gang's otherwise unsupported assertions. The district court ultimately granted Gang's motion to dismiss with prejudice and directed Gang to prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Upon receiving the proposed order from Gang, Hunter refused to approve it because he claimed it contained unsupported findings of fact and conclusions of law, and essentially granted summary judgment. Nevertheless, Gang submitted the order, which the court signed, despite its lack of citation to legal authority and despite the fact that two years had not elapsed since Hunter filed his complaint. Hunter appealed the dismissal, which is pending before this court in Docket No. 59691.

Thereafter, Gang moved for attorney fees in the district court pursuant to NRS 18.010(2)(b)

, claiming that Hunter brought his claims without reasonable grounds or to harass, and for costs under NRS 18.020, as the prevailing party. The motion did not contain evidentiary support for Gang's substantive claims that Hunter brought the lawsuit without reasonable grounds or to harass,⁴ and the district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing. Nonetheless, the district court granted Gang's motion for attorney fees and costs in full. Hunter then appealed from that order, which is before us in Docket No. 63804, and the two appeals were subsequently consolidated.

ANALYSIS

The basis for the district court's dismissal with prejudice in this case was Hunter's purported failure to prosecute his action with diligence. The district court, however, did not specify the source of its authority when it granted Gang's motion to dismiss. Thus, to aid our analysis, we begin by discussing the applicable authorities under which the district court may dismiss an action for want of prosecution and the parties' arguments in relation to those authorities. After we determine the source of the district court's authority, we address whether the district court's findings...