IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST No. 67391
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER
POOLING AND SERVICING
AGREEMENT DATED AS OF APRIL 1,
2007 SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED
RECEIVABLES LLC TRUST 2007-BR2 FILED
(INCORRECTLY NAMED AS DEUTSCHE
MAY 1 0 2016
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY),
TRACE K. UNDEMAN
Appellant, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
vs. BY
DEPUTY CLERK
PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., A
NEVADA CORPORATION,
Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a
quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Richard
Scotti, Judge.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
respondent, reasoning that this court's opinion in SFR Investments Pool 1,
LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408 (2014),
upheld the constitutionality of NRS Chapter 116's notice and lien
foreclosure scheme. On appeal, appellant first contends that the SFR
Investments opinion left this issue unresolved and that NRS Chapter 116's
scheme is facially unconstitutional. Having reviewed the record, we
conclude that appellant did not adequately raise this argument in district
court. We therefore decline to consider it in the first instance on appeal.
See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983
(1981).
Appellant next contends that the district court abused its
SUPREME COURT discretion in denying its request for a continuance under NRCP 56(f). See
OF
NEVADA
Choy v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., 127 Nev. 870, 872, 265 P.3d 698, 700
(0) 1947A
- ItiS7
(2011) (recognizing that a district court has the discretion to grant or deny
a continuance of a motion for summary judgment to allow further
discovery). We conclude that the district court was within its discretion in
denying appellant's request, as the declaration provided in support of its
request stated without elaboration that appellant needed to conduct
discovery on the general issues of 'notice,' tender, compliance of NRS 116,
and the amount of the HOA lien." This statement failed to specify what
discovery appellant needed to undertake and what it expected that
discovery to yield that would generate genuine issues of material fact to
defeat summary judgment. See NRCP 56(f) ("Should it appear from the
affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons
stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition,
the court. . . may order a continuance. . . ."); Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas,
LLC, 127 Nev. 657, 669, 262 P.3d 705, 714 (2011) ("A motion for a
continuance under NRCP 56(f) is appropriate only when the movant
expresses how further discovery will lead to the creation of a genuine issue
of material fact." (quotation and alteration omitted)). The district court
was therefore within its discretion to deny appellant's request for a
continuance. Choy, 127 Nev. at 872, 265 P.3d at 700. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
zt
Hardesty
J.
Saitta
Ackmdke
SUPREME COURT Pickering
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge
John Walter Boyer, Settlement Judge
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Tucson
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
Hong & Hong
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3