Br Constr., LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Holbrook Beef and Cattle Co., LLC) ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                Here, there is no dispute that when BR Construction filed its
    motion to dismiss in December 2014, five years had passed since the filing
    of Holbrook's complaint on July 31, 2009. Rather, Holbrook argues that
    the parties' settlement agreement stayed the action until December 10,
    2013, when the district court lifted the stay, and that the stay operated to
    toll the five-year period. Further, Holbrook argues that BR Construction's
    "subterfuge" in asking to vacate the trial date and then not filing for
    bankruptcy as indicated should toll the period. Finally, Holbrook asks
    that any dismissal be entered without prejudice.
    Because the district court did not order the stay and the
    parties did not explicitly agree to extend the five-year period, the five-year
    period was not tolled. Boren v. City of N. Las Vegas, 
    98 Nev. 5
    , 5-6, 
    638 P.2d 404
    , 404 (1982) (holding that court-ordered stays extend the five-year
    period); Prostack v. Lowden, 
    96 Nev. 230
    , 231, 
    606 P.2d 1099
    , 1099-1100
    (1980) (explaining that a stipulation must expressly extend the five-year
    deadline; a stipulation to continue the trial date that makes no mention of
    the five-year rule does not suffice, and a defendant's "(w)ords and conduct,
    short of a written stipulation' cannot estop a defendant from asserting the
    mandatory dismissal rule" (quoting Thran v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 
    79 Nev. 176
    , 181, 
    380 P.2d 297
    , 300 (1963))). Accordingly, the district court
    was required to dismiss the action.
    With regard to Holbrook's request that any dismissal be
    entered without prejudice, "the district court has broad discretion in
    determining whether an NRCP 41(e) dismissal should be with or without
    prejudice." Home Say. Ass'n v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 
    109 Nev. 558
    , 563-
    64, 
    854 P.2d 851
    , 854 (1993). The district court has not yet considered this
    proposal, and thus, this court's intervention would be premature as to that
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    aeD
    issue. See Kochendorfer v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs.,      
    93 Nev. 419
    , 422, 
    566 P.2d 1131
    , 1133 (1977) (explaining that mandamus cannot be used to
    control the proper exercise of discretion or to substitute the judgment of
    this court for that of the district court). Thus, without deciding the
    prejudice issue, mandamus is warranted, NRS 34.160 (providing that
    mandamus will issue to compel an act enjoined by law); Smith v. Eighth
    Judicial Din. Court, 
    113 Nev. 1343
    , 1344-45 & n.1, 1348, 
    950 P.2d 280
    ,
    281 & n.1, 283 (1997), and we
    ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK
    OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the
    district court to grant the motion to dismiss under NRCP 41(e).
    ,J.
    Parraguirre
    cc:   Chief Judge, The Ninth Judicial District Court
    Hon. David R. Gamble, Senior Judge
    James J. Rankl
    Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd.
    Douglas County Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) I947A