Paul v. Dist. Ct.

141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 38 (Nev. 2025) · Supreme Court of Nevada · August 21, 2025 · No. 71168688

Summary

This Nevada Supreme Court opinion addresses a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking mandatory dismissal of a civil action under NRCP 41(e)(2)(B) due to failure to bring the case to trial within five years. The court holds that the five-year prosecution period began when the original derivative complaint was filed in 2014 and was not restarted by later counterclaims or waived by other parties' stipulations. Consequently, the court grants the petition and directs the district court to dismiss the action against the petitioners.

Court
Supreme Court of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Stiglich, J.; Parraguire, J.; Bell, J.
Jurisdiction
Nevada
Decision date
August 21, 2025
Docket number
71168688
Procedural posture
Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition seeking dismissal of the action against Paul under NRCP 41(e)(2)(B)
Precedential value
published
Parties
Wesley J. Paul and Paul Law Group, LLP v. Second Judicial District Court of Nevada and Judge David A. Hardy
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

statute of limitationscivil procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether NRCP 41(e)(2)(B) mandates dismissal of the action against Paul despite waivers by other parties and stays
  2. Whether the 2020 amended counterclaim restarts the five‑year prescriptive period

Holdings

  1. Yes. The five‑year prescriptive period runs from the filing of the original action and is not tolled or waived for a defendant who did not participate in the waiver; therefore dismissal is mandatory.
  2. No. An amended pleading does not reset the NRCP 41(e)(2)(B) clock; the action is the same as the original filing.

Key quotations

NRCP 41(e)(2)(B) mandates dismissal of any civil action not brought to trial within five years. (at 1)
The five‑year clock is tolled for "[a]ny period during which the parties are prevented from bringing an action to trial by reason of a stay order." (at 5)

Factual background

In 2014 Paul and the Paul Law Group were named as corporate counsel in a derivative shareholder complaint filed on behalf of Bakken Resources, Inc. The case was consolidated with two related actions, and in 2018 the remaining parties stipulated to waive NRCP 41(e)(2)(B)'s five‑year limit, although Paul was not a party to that waiver. After a COVID‑19 stay and a separate 47‑day stay, the action remained pending, and Paul filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution in August 2024.

Procedural history

The derivative shareholder action began in March 2014. Various parties were consolidated, and waivers of the five‑year prosecution period were stipulated in 2018 without Paul’s participation. After stays totaling 434 days, Paul moved to dismiss in August 2024. The district court denied, treating the 2020 amended counterclaim as a new action. Paul appealed via mandamus petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…