appellant of its pending foreclosure sale. Appellant, however, has not
explained why this allegation would entitle appellant to relief if the
allegation were proven to be true.' See Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 227-28, 181
P.3d at 672 (recognizing that dismissal of a complaint is proper when the
complaint's factual allegations, even when recognized as true, do not
satisfy the elements of the causes of action being asserted); cf Edwards v.
Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38
(2006) (noting that it is an appellant's responsibility to provide this court
with cogent arguments supported by relevant authority). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, C.J.
Hardesty
Parraguirre Douglas
J.
Gibbons Pickering
'In particular, because the underlying complaint was filed by the
purchaser at appellant's foreclosure sale, it is unclear how United Legal
Services' alleged failure to properly notify appellant of United Legal
Services' pending foreclosure sale would have entitled the purchaser to the
relief sought in the purchaser's complaint.
SUPREME COURT
OF 2
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge
Malcolm Cisneros
Maier Gutierrez Ayon, PLLC
Atkinson Law Associates, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A