Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court held that it had appellate jurisdiction over an order granting relief from a default judgment under NRCP 60(b)(1) when the motion was filed more than 60 days after entry of judgment. The court further held that NRCP 60(b)(6) is mutually exclusive of NRCP 60(b)(1)-(5) and cannot be used to circumvent the six-month deadline applicable to relief based on mistake or excusable neglect. The court reversed the district court's order setting aside the default judgment and remanded the matter.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Nevada Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over an order granting NRCP 60(b)(1) relief when the motion was filed more than 60 days after entry of the default judgment.
- Whether JMI's NRCP 60(b)(1) motion was untimely because it was filed more than six months after service of written notice of entry of the judgment.
- Whether relief under NRCP 60(b)(6) was available when the grounds asserted constituted mistake or excusable neglect within NRCP 60(b)(1).
Holdings
- An order granting an NRCP 60(b)(1) motion filed more than 60 days after entry of judgment is appealable as a special order entered after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8).
- A motion seeking relief under NRCP 60(b)(1) must be filed within six months after service of written notice of entry of the judgment; a motion filed outside that period is untimely and must be denied.
- NRCP 60(b)(6) is mutually exclusive of NRCP 60(b)(1)-(5) and may not be used to obtain relief that would have been available under NRCP 60(b)(1), including to circumvent the six-month deadline.
Key quotations
“We now explicitly hold that all orders granting NRCP 60(b)(1) motions filed more than 60 days after entry of the judgment are appealable as special orders in accordance with Lindblom, Meisel, and the plain language of NRAP 3A(b)(8).” (2022 NV 38, at 5)
“Thus, we hold that relief may not be sought under NRCP 60(b)(6) when it would have been available under NRCP 60(b)(1)-(5).” (2022 NV 38, at 8)
“Importantly, NRCP 60(b)(6) may not be used as a subterfuge to circumvent the time limits that apply to a request for relief based on NRCP 60(b)(1).” (2022 NV 38, at 9)
Factual background
Vargas alleged that security guards attacked him on premises owned by J Morales Inc. and that JMI negligently failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. JMI was served through its registered agent, but its owner and sole corporate officer, Jose Morales, did not respond after relying on advice from an insurance agent. Default was entered, and a default judgment exceeding $1.7 million was entered after JMI had been served with notice of entry. JMI moved to set aside the judgment more than 14 months after that notice, citing reliance on the insurance agent's advice, lack of procedural knowledge, and a language barrier.
Procedural history
Vargas obtained a default judgment exceeding $1.7 million against J Morales Inc. JMI moved to set aside the judgment more than 14 months after service of written notice of entry, asserting mistake or excusable neglect under NRCP 60(b)(1) and other grounds under NRCP 60(b)(6). The district court granted the motion under both provisions, and Vargas appealed.
Remand instructions
The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.