Choy v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc.

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that a party opposing summary judgment must provide the affidavit required by NRCP 56(f) when seeking a continuance for additional discovery. Because Choy submitted only a paragraph in his opposition and presented no specific facts showing that Ameristar owned or operated the casino, the court affirmed both the denial of a continuance and the grant of summary judgment.

Holdings

1. A party opposing summary judgment and seeking denial or continuance to obtain additional affidavits or conduct further discovery must provide an affidavit stating why the requested denial or continuance is necessary. A request contained only in the opposition brief is not substantially compliant with NRCP 56(f).
2. Summary judgment was proper because Choy failed to present specific facts or affidavits demonstrating a genuine issue that Ameristar owned or operated the Ameristar Casino Hotel Kansas City.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a party opposing summary judgment may obtain a continuance for additional discovery under NRCP 56(f) without submitting the required affidavit.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper when the opposing party presented no specific facts or affidavits creating a genuine issue as to whether the defendant owned or operated the casino.

Disposition

affirmed