appellant challenges the district court's rejection of his counterclaim. See
Consol. Generator-Neu., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312,
971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (recognizing that a party may challenge
interlocutory orders entered before a final judgment in an appeal from the
final judgment).
Turning to the merits of appellant's challenge to the rejection
of his counterclaims, having considered appellant's civil proper person
appeal statement and the record on appeal, we affirm the district court's
denial of his motion to submit a counterclaim, as appellant's proposed
counterclaim failed to state a cognizable claim against respondent. 1 Cf.
Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. „ 302 P.3d
1148, 1152 (2013) (explaining that leave to amend a complaint should be
denied if the proposed amendment would be futile because it attempts to
plead an impermissible claim); Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas,
124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (providing that a complaint
should be dismissed "if it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could
prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief).
It is so ORDERED.
J.
1S4ekr
Parraguirre .
'Although the district court denied appellant's motion to submit a
counterclaim on the ground that no such motion was available to
appellant, we may affirm the district court's order if it reached the correct
result, albeit for a different reason. See Butler ex rel. Biller v. Bayer, 123
Nev. 450, 460 n.22, 168 P.3d 1055, 1063 n.22 (2007).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
John Michael Foster
Steven J. Klearman & Associates
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A me