Sequeira v. Bourn ( 2015 )

 that was improperly excluded by the district court, and we thus conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this regard.
Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion
for the "high cost of personal damages incurred and attorney fees in favor
of the respondent from the appellant." Appellant also argues that the
district court erred in awarding attorney fees and costs when Patrick
Bourn was found at fault by the police, showing bias by awarding fees to
respondents and disregarding NRCP 54(d)(2) after respondents untimely
sought fees. We review the district court's decision to award attorney fees
or costs for an abuse of discretion. Las Vegas Metro, Police Dep't v.
Blackjack Bonding, Inc., 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 10, 343 P.3d 608, 614 (2015).
Appellant's damages and expenses incurred do not constitute a basis for
relief, and appellant has not shown that the district court relied upon a
clearly erroneous factual determination or disregarded controlling law.
See id. Respondents were the prevailing parties and were entitled to
recover attorney fees and costs under NSTR 27(b). The record shows the
district court awarded respondents attorney fees and costs under NSTR
27(b) promptly after the jury verdict, and appellant has not shown that •
the district court abused its discretion. See NRCP 54(d).
Appellant argues that the district court erred in conducting a
"highly irregular procedural series of hearings" that did not constitute
legal proceedings because they failed to consider controlling law and
public policy. "District courts have wide discretion to control the conduct
of proceedings pending before them." Div. of Child & Family Servs. v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 453, 92 P.3d 1239, 1244 (2004).
As appellant has not identified controlling authority or public policy that
was not considered and the authority cited is distinguishable, we conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I 947A
Appellant argues that the district court showed bias by
accepting conclusory allegations that were not based on verifiable facts.
Appellant has failed to specifically allege or demonstrate of any improper
motive or instances of actual bias, and, accordingly, we conclude that this
basis lacks merit. See Sonner v. State, 112 Nev. 1328, 1335, 930 P.2d 707,
712 (1996), modified on rehearing on, other grounds, 114 Nev. 321, 955
P.2d 673 (1998).
Appellant argues that she was entitled to recover damages for
lost wages and medical expenses even if she had been partially
reimbursed. As appellant failed to establish respondents' liability before
the district court or here, determining damages is not necessary. Thus, we
conclude this argument lacks merit.
Appellant argues against the credibility of respondents' expert
but fails to identify error related to that testimony, and we thereby
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Hallmark
v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 498, 189 P.3d 646, 650 (2008). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Dorothy J. Kyle, Short Trial Judge
Mayerling Sequeira
Law Offices of Katherine M. Barker
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 19474 ea