based on a summary judgment granted in favor of some of the defendants, we conclude that these arguments lack merit. See NRCP 41(e) (providing that when an appeal is taken, and the judgment is reversed on appeal and remanded for a new trial, the district court must dismiss the action if not brought to trial within 3 years); see also Monroe ix Columbia Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 123 Nev. 96, 99-101, 158 P.3d 1008, 1010-11 (2007) (stating that NRCP 41(e) dismissal is mandatory and a summary judgment qualifies as bringing a case to trial only if the summary judgment ruling resolved the entire action as to the parties to the motion, and the plaintiff must continue to advance any unresolved claims to avoid the five-year rule); Morgan u. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 118 Nev. 315, 320, 43 P.3d 1036, 1039 (2002) (recognizing that an action in the court-annexed arbitration program could not have proceeded to trial until arbitration concluded, but rejecting the argument that the time to bring a case to trial was tolled as a result); Allyn u. McDonald, 117 Nev. 907, 912, 34 P.3d 584, 587 (2001) ("Except in very limited circumstances, we uphold NRCP 41(e) dismissals without regard to the plaintiffs reasons for allowing the mandatory period to lapse."); Great W. Land & Cattle Corp u. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 86 Nev. 282, 285, 467 P.2d 1019, 1021 (1970) ("Rule 41, as written and construed, does not contemplate an examination of the equities. Any other construction would destroy the mandatory 5-year dismissal rule and make the determination a matter of trial court discretion."). We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of appellant's action. Appellant also challenges the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to respondents Lance and Kelly McDade and the handling of respondent Quality Grading & Paving, Inc.'s claims against appellant,
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e
which were initially filed in Henderson Justice Court. Having reviewed appellant's arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to the McDades. See Gunderson v. DS. Horton, Inc., 130 Nev. , , 319 P.3d 606, 615 (2014) (stating that this court generally reviews the district court's decision regarding attorney fees for an abuse of discretion). And while appellant argues that Quality Grading did not file a proper counterclaim against him in the district court, the record shows that the Henderson Justice Court action was transferred to the district court and was consolidated with appellant's action. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Jeffrey Charles Shawn L. Morris, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A .°