but on his attorney as well. NRCP 5(b)(1); NRS 18.015(3). In addition,
the district court failed to consider Stinziano's February 3, 2014,
opposition to Steinberg's motion or to otherwise state in its order that it
refused to consider the opposition because it was late, see EDCR 2.20(e);
EDCR 5.11(d), and the district court failed to consider the Brunzell factors
and set forth its reasoning regarding those factors in its order. See
Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish,
125 Nev. 527, 540 n.2, 216 P.3d 779, 788 n.2 (2009); Brunzell, 85 Nev. at
349-50, 455 P.2d at 33-34. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
court abused its discretion in adjudicating the retaining lien, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for new proceedings on the
motion to adjudicate the retaining lien consistent with this order.
,J
Saitta
eaA. J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division
Anthony Michael Stinziano
Steinberg Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A