Crockett v. 2960 St. Rose Parkway

1

HENRY CROCKETT, II D/B/A STATE FARM, Appellants, v. 2960 ST. ROSE PARKWAY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 87699-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 7, 2024

Unpublished Opinion

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Henry Crockett, II D/B/A State Farm appeals from an order denying a motion for relief from judgment in a landlord-tenant contract dispute. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County Adriana Escobar, Judge.

In December 2020, respondent 2960 St. Rose Parkway, LLC (St Rose) filed a complaint against Crockett, alleging various contract-related claims. The complaint alleged that Crockett signed a lease with St. Rose for a premises. Although the lease ended on May 31, 2020, St. Rose alleged that Crockett discontinued paying rent around April 1, 2020, and remained in possession of the premises through August 31, 2020 resulting in over $15,000 in damages. Crockett disputed the allegations, and the parties engaged in extensive motion practice with Crockett contesting the amount of money he owed St. Rose.

St Rose thereafter filed a renewed motion for summary judgment based on Crockett's failure to respond to its requests for admission, rendering the requests admitted under NRCP 36(a)(3).^[1] Based on those admissions, St. Rose argued that there were no genuine issues of material fact with respect to its claims. St. Rose argued that it set forth its claim for damages in a supplement to one of its motions in June 2021, which contained a declaration of its property manager and a breakdown of the amount due. While Crockett disputed the amount of damages, St. Rose contended that he failed to provide any admissible evidence to rebut its calculation and failed to participate in the discovery process. Crockett responded to the motion, contesting the allegations in the complaint and the amount of damages.

Following a hearing that Crockett failed to attend-ostensibly for medical reasons-the district court entered a written order granting St. Rose's renewed motion for summary judgment based on St. Rose's unanswered requests for admission, which it deemed admitted pursuant to NRCP 36(a)(3), and entered judgment in favor of St. Rose.

Following the grant of summary judgment, Crockett filed a motion to set aside the judgment, requesting a new hearing and again challenging the amount of damages. St. Rose opposed the motion, and Crockett filed a reply. The district court denied the motion to set aside.

Rather than appealing that order,^[2] Crockett filed a second motion seeking to set aside the grant of summary judgment "[p]ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(6)." He argued that newly discovered evidence demonstrated that St. Rose obtained the judgment based on fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. Relying on the declaration from St. Rose's property manager, Crockett claimed he had recently discovered that St. Rose submitted falsified information to the court to support its claims, knowingly filed incorrect billing statements, and failed to utilize his security deposit. Crockett contended that the evidence was not available to him previously "due to no trial" and St. Rose's "intentional concealment." He also argued that he was unable to present his "suspicion" of fraud and other misconduct, that the misconduct prevented him from fully presenting his case, and that it was in the interest of justice to grant him relief from the judgment. St. Rose opposed the motion and Crockett filed a reply.

The district court entered a written order denying Crockett's second motion to set aside the judgment, concluding that summary judgment was appropriately granted. The court found that the motion should have been brought under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the federal rules, but that, regardless, Crockett's motion relied upon evidence which was not newly discovered and had been available earlier in the proceedings during discovery, but Crockett failed to participate in the discovery process (NRCP 60(b)(2)). The court further found that Crockett failed to establish that the judgment was based on fraud (NRCP 60(b)(3)), and that there was no justification for relief under NRCP 60(b)(6). The court also found that Crockett failed to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect (NRCP 60(b)(1)), although Crockett did not rely upon that provision in his motion. This appeal followed.^[3]

On appeal, Crockett's arguments largely focus on the district court's grant of summary judgment, rather than the denial of his second motion to set aside that judgment, and his contention that there is an ongoing dispute over the amount he owed St. Rose. He asks that this court set aside the district court's grant of summary judgment so that he has the opportunity to be heard at trial.

The district court has wide discretion to grant...