Zollo v. Terrible Herbst, Inc.

On remand, the district court made the following determinations: Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good faith or the exercise of due diligence regarding the filing of a substitution of attorney [sic]. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable basis for the Court to extend the time period for filing a motion to substitute beyond the 90-day, limit NRCP 25(a)(1) imposes following a suggestion of death, and Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the nonmoving party would not suffer prejudice by an enlargement of the specified time. Based on these determinations, the district court concluded that excusable neglect had not been established and again dismissed appellant's case for failure to file a motion to substitute within NRCP 25(a)(1)'s time frame. Appellant contends that the district court did not make any factual findings but instead simply concluded summarily that the four Moseley factors were not satisfied.' We agree. Similar to the first appeal in this case, the district court's order does not articulate a factual basis for its conclusion that appellant had not established excusable neglect. Cf. Jitnan v. Oliver, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 35, 254 P.3d 623, 629 (2011) ("Without an explanation of the reasons or bases for a district court's decision, meaningful appellate review. . . is hampered because we are left to mere speculation."). Accordingly, we 'We have not considered appellant's arguments that were not first raised in district court. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (41004 ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 2 J. cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge Richard Harris Law Firm Nikolas L. Mastrangelo Moran Brandon Bendavid Moran Eighth District Court Clerk 20n remand, we instruct the district court clerk to reassign this case to a different department. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e(fe