judgment or order was served."). We reject this contention on the ground
that it was not timely made. In particular, in respondent's NRCP 60(b)
motion and in its reply, respondent argued that the six-month time frame
was not triggered because notice of the default judgment's entry had not
been served. Appellant did not refute this purportedly inaccurate
argument in either its opposition to the NRCP 60(b) motion or at the
hearing on the motion. Thus, the district court's failure to consider an
issue that was not presented to it cannot be deemed an abuse of discretion.
See Kahn, 108 Nev. at 513, 835 P.2d at 792. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
\-- Satfia
gekga
Pickering I
U
cc: Hon. Kerry Louise Earley, District Judge
Robert F. Saint-Aubin, Settlement Judge
Kyle & Kyle
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A