CEDRIC GREENE v. PREFERRED IPA OF CALIFORNIA (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Cedric Greene appeals from a district court order dismissing a tort action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.

Greene initiated the underlying “civil tort complaint for gross medical neglect and misconduct” against respondent Preferred IPA of California in the Eighth Judicial District Court. Preferred IPA subsequently moved to quash service of the complaint for failure to properly serve the same and sought to dismiss the complaint on personal jurisdiction grounds. In the motion, Preferred IPA argued that Greene improperly served the complaint by certified mail and that the Nevada district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. On the jurisdiction point, Preferred IPA asserted that Nevada lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over it because it is a California corporation which does not operate or otherwise have contacts with Nevada sufficient to allow it to be hailed into a Nevada court. Greene opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that he was not properly served with the motion and had not seen a copy of it such that he had to file a “blind” opposition.

Greene later sought to clarify his mailing address with the court in light of the purported non-service of Preferred IPA's motion, a request Preferred IPA opposed arguing, among other things, that it had evidence that Greene not only received the motion to dismiss, which was e-served upon him, but that he opened it. Preferred IPA attached documents to its opposition supporting its claim that Greene had received the motion via electronic service and that he had opened that document.

Following the filing of various other requests for relief, and a hearing on the motion to quash/motion to dismiss, which Greene attended via Blue Jeans, the district court entered an order granting the motion in part and dismissed Greene's case without prejudice. This appeal followed.

We review a district court's resolution of personal jurisdiction issues de novo. See Baker v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 527, 531, 999 P.2d 1020, 1023 (2000). “[A] nonresident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state so that subjecting the defendant to the state's jurisdiction will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantia] justice.” Fulbright & Jaworski LLP v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. 30, 36, 342 P.3d 997, 1001 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In the underlying case, Preferred IPA moved to dismiss the case on personal jurisdiction grounds—a request that the district court granted. But on appeal, Greene fails to address or otherwise explain why he believes the Nevada district court could properly exercise jurisdiction over Preferred IPA. And while Greene argued below that Preferred IPA failed to properly serve him with its motion to dismiss—a point Preferred IPA disputed in the district court—he does not repeat that argument on appeal. As a result, Greene has waived any such arguments. See Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that “[i]ssues not raised in an appellant's opening brief are deemed waived”). While Greene spends much of his informal brief addressing other aspects of the district court's handling of the underlying case, his assertions in this regard do not provide any cogent argument that would support a conclusion that the dismissal of the underlying case was in error. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006); Baker, 116 Nev. at 531, 999 P.2d at 1023. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Greene's complaint.¹

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Insofar as Greene raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief.