Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Nevada

Background

“Summary judgment is proper only if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Ringle v. Bruton (2004) 120 Nev. 82, 89.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Procedurally, in support of a motion for summary judgment “[u]nder NRCP 56(c)(1), a party may support their factual position through items in the record, including affidavits, interrogatory answers, etc.” (Persike v. Lochner (2020) 460 P.3d 25.)

Indeed, as the Nevada Supreme Court has made abundantly clear, “[w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as required by NRCP 56, the non-moving party may not rest upon general allegations and conclusions, but must, by affidavit or otherwise, set forth specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine factual issue.” (Wood v. Safeway (2005) 121 Nev. 724, 731.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate under NRCP 56 when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits, if any, that are properly before the court demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Id.)

Clarification of Factual Disputes

“The substantive law controls which factual disputes are material and will preclude summary judgment; other factual disputes are irrelevant. A factual dispute is genuine when the evidence is such that a rational trier of fact could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” (Id., at 731.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“A district court's decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” (Lakeshore House Ltd. v. Bank of W., No. 78062, at *6 [Nev. Nov. 3, 2020] citing Wood v. Safeway, Inc. (2005) 121 Nev. 724, 729.)

The Court’s Decision

“It is well-settled that unanswered requests for admission may be properly relied upon as a basis for granting summary judgment.” (Estate of Adams ex rel. Estate v. Fallini (2016) 386 P.3d 621, 625 citing Wagner v. Carex Investigations & Sec. Inc. (1977) 93 Nev. 627, 630 [concluding that summary judgment was properly based on admissions stemming from a party's unanswered request for admission under NRCP 36, even where such admissions were contradicted by previously filed answers to interrogatories]; Smith v. Emery (1993) 109 Nev. 737, 742 [explaining that “failure to respond to a request for admissions will result in those matters being deemed conclusively established ... even if the established matters are ultimately untrue.”])

“It is well established that Nevada's appellate courts will generally not exercise their discretion to consider petitions for extraordinary writ relief that challenge orders denying motions for summary judgment unless summary judgment is clearly required by a statute or rule, or an important issue of law requires clarification.” (E. Wigwam, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, No. 82221-COA, at *1 [Nev. App. Feb. 25, 2021] citing Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (1997) 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45.)