McNeill v. Healthsouth Corp. ( 2013 )

 for reconsideration and for relief from the judgment under NRCP 60(b),
which the district court also denied. This appeal followed.
It is undisputed that appellant did not timely respond to the
requests for admissions and that no extension of time to respond was
sought or obtained either from respondents or the court. Therefore, the
items contained in the requests for admissions were deemed admitted by
operation of NRCP 36(a). Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 742-43, 856 P.2d
1386, 1390 (1993); Graham v. Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 91 Nev. 609, 610,
540 P.2d 105, 105-06 (1975). This court has held that admissions deemed
admitted under these circumstances may properly serve as the basis for
summary judgment against a party who failed to timely respond to the
request for admissions. Wagner v. Carex Investigations & Sec., 93 Nev.
627, 631-32, 572 P.2d 921, 924 (1977); Lawrence v. Southwest Gas Corp.,
89 Nev. 433, 433-34, 514 P.2d 868, 869 (1973). Because no genuine issues
of fact remained due to appellant's admissions, we perceive no error in the
district court's grant of summary judgment in respondents' favor. Wood v.
Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (explaining
that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of
material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law).
We likewise perceive no abuse of discretion in the district
court's denial of appellant's motion for reconsideration and for relief from
the judgment. The district court has broad discretion in deciding whether
to grant or deny an NRCP 60(b) motion to set aside a judgment, and this
court will not disturb that decision absent an abuse of discretion. Cook v.
Cook, 112 Nev. 179, 181-82, 912 P.2d 264, 265 (1996). "The determination
of the existence of excusable neglect is a matter within the sound
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
discretion of the district judge." Ogle v. Miller, 87 Nev. 573, 576, 491 P.2d
40, 42 (1971). Where conduct suggests neglect, but no attempt is made to
establish that a failure resulted from excusable neglect, a district court is
not bound to declare the conduct excusable neglect. Tahoe Village Realty
v. DeSmet, 95 Nev. 131, 134, 590 P.2d 1158, 1160 (1979), abrogated on
other grounds by Ace Truck v. Kahn, 103 Nev. 503, 746 P.2d 132 (1987).
Appellant's motion for reconsideration did not establish that
the failure that resulted in summary judgment—either the failure of
appellant to respond to the requests for admissions or of appellant's
counsel to provide a supplemental opposition to respondents' motion for
summary judgment—was as a result of excusable neglect. It was not an
abuse of discretion, therefore, for the district court to deny the motion.
Tahoe Village Realty, 95 Nev. at 134, 590 P.2d at 1160. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 4
William C. Turner, Settlement Judge
David Lee Phillips & Associates
Jimmerson Hansen
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A • •1'.7' 1
•9.