CEDRIC GREENE v. PRICE SELF STORAGE WEST LA LLC (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Cedric Greene appeals from a district court order dismissing the underlying case for lack of personal jurisdiction. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.

Greene, a California resident, initiated the underlying civil action against respondent Price Self Storage West LA, LLC, (Price) based on the fact that Price served a notice to vacate property from a storage unit on Greene's wife, Valerie Stephen. Greene's complaint sought injunctive relief and damages to be determined at a later date.

Price subsequently moved to dismiss the case based on the Nevada district court's lack of jurisdiction over it. In so doing, Price noted that it does not do business in Nevada and that the contract between Stephen and Price was executed in California for a storage unit in that state. Price further noted that Greene's complaint does not allege that Price had any contacts with Nevada. As a result, Price alleged that it was unreasonable and unfair for it to be brought into court in Nevada.

The district court later entered an order granting the motion to dismiss. The order notes that the basis for Greene's case was “in contract and subject matter that have their situs in” California, that Greene does not reside in Nevada, and that Price is not a Nevada business entity. The order grants the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction with prejudice. This appeal followed.

We review a district court's resolution of issues pertaining to its exercise of jurisdiction over a party de novo. See Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009); Baker v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 527, 531, 999 P.2d 1020, 1023 (2000).

On appeal, Greene fails to develop any cogent argument regarding the personal jurisdictional grounds on which the district court dismissed his case. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (declining to consider issues that are not supported by cogent argument). As a result, Greene has failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in dismissing his case on these grounds, and we therefore affirm that determination.¹

It is so ORDERED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, 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.