CEDRIC GREENE v. GLOBAL CARE MEDICAL GROUP (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Cedric Greene appeals from a district court order denying a motion to change the place of trial. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Ronald J. Israel, Judge.

Greene filed the underlying tort action against respondent Global Care Medical Group. Greene later filed a motion seeking a change of venue to either the First or Second Judicial District Courts. Greene's motion cited NRS 13.050(2)(b) (allowing a court to change the place of trial “[w]hen there is reason to believe that an impartial proceeding cannot be had” in the judicial district). In his motion, Greene asserted that he cannot “obtain an impartial anything” in the Eighth Judicial District, as “the judicial venue could [care less],” citing various alleged processing issues and the fact the Eighth Judicial District did not provide him with “adequate customer service.”

The district court subsequently denied Greene's motion to change the place of trial. Greene now appeals from that determination.¹

We will not overturn a district court's denial of a motion to change the place of trial “absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Sicor, Inc. v. Hutchison, 127 Nev. 904, 911, 266 P.3d 608, 613 (2011).

In seeking to change venue on the basis that he cannot obtain an impartial trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Greene offered only vague assertions regarding alleged processing issues and the court's “customer service.” But Greene failed to provide any specific explanation regarding these alleged incidents or illustrate how these events demonstrate that he will be unable to receive an impartial trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (holding that the court need not consider claims that are not cogently argued).

Moreover, to the extent Greene's intent is to suggest that these alleged incidents somehow demonstrate bias against him in the Eighth Judicial District, such that a change of venue should have been granted, this argument does not provide a basis for relief. Cf. Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022) (explaining that unless an alleged bias has its origins in an extrajudicial source, disqualification is unwarranted absent a showing that the judge formed an dismiss regarding service or personal jurisdiction was filed, nor was an order to show cause regarding service entered. Moreover, while the record reflects that the district court orally directed that this matter be dismissed, the record does not reflect that a written, file-stamped order of dismissal has been entered. Thus, contrary to the statements made in the challenged order, it does not appear that the underlying case has been dismissed, and we therefore properly review only the denial of the motion to change the place of trial in this appeal. See Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that oral pronouncements from the bench are ineffective and only a written judgment has legal effect and can be reviewed on appeal). opinion based on facts introduced during official judicial proceedings and which reflects deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible); In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988) (providing that rulings made during official judicial proceedings generally “do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification”); Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009) (stating that the burden is on the party asserting bias to establish sufficient factual grounds for disqualification), overruled on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 6, 501 P.3d 980, 984 (2022), abrogated, in part on other grounds by Killebrew v. State ex rel. Donohue, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 43, 535 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2023).

Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in denying Greene's motion to change the place of trial, see Sicor, 127 Nev. at 911, 266 P.3d at 613, and we therefore affirm the district court's decision.

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In denying the motion to change the place of trial, the district court indicated that the case had previously been dismissed on December 22, 2023. But a review of the record and docket entries shows no motion to