Deutsche Bank Nat'l. Trust Co. v. Premier One Holdings, Inc.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST No. 67391 COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED AS OF APRIL 1, 2007 SECURITIZED ASSET BACKED RECEIVABLES LLC TRUST 2007-BR2 FILED (INCORRECTLY NAMED AS DEUTSCHE MAY 1 0 2016 BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY), TRACE K. UNDEMAN Appellant, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

vs. BY DEPUTY CLERK PREMIER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Respondent.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment in a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Richard Scotti, Judge. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of respondent, reasoning that this court's opinion in SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408 (2014), upheld the constitutionality of NRS Chapter 116's notice and lien foreclosure scheme. On appeal, appellant first contends that the SFR Investments opinion left this issue unresolved and that NRS Chapter 116's scheme is facially unconstitutional. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that appellant did not adequately raise this argument in district court. We therefore decline to consider it in the first instance on appeal. See Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981). Appellant next contends that the district court abused its SUPREME COURT discretion in denying its request for a continuance under NRCP 56(f). See OF NEVADA Choy v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., 127 Nev. 870, 872, 265 P.3d 698, 700 (0) 1947A - ItiS7

(2011) (recognizing that a district court has the discretion to grant or deny a continuance of a motion for summary judgment to allow further discovery). We conclude that the district court was within its discretion in denying appellant's request, as the declaration provided in support of its request stated without elaboration that appellant needed to conduct discovery on the general issues of 'notice,' tender, compliance of NRS 116, and the amount of the HOA lien." This statement failed to specify what discovery appellant needed to undertake and what it expected that discovery to yield that would generate genuine issues of material fact to defeat summary judgment. See NRCP 56(f) ("Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court. . . may order a continuance. . . ."); Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 127 Nev. 657, 669, 262 P.3d 705, 714 (2011) ("A motion for a continuance under NRCP 56(f) is appropriate only when the movant expresses how further discovery will lead to the creation of a genuine issue of material fact." (quotation and alteration omitted)). The district court was therefore within its discretion to deny appellant's request for a continuance. Choy, 127 Nev. at 872, 265 P.3d at 700. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

zt Hardesty

J. Saitta

Ackmdke SUPREME COURT Pickering OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge John Walter Boyer, Settlement Judge Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Tucson Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Hong & Hong Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA