BAHAM v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC 2005 2005 (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Baham filed two complaints seeking injunctive relief against respondents to prevent them from foreclosing on his home. The district court consolidated the actions and ultimately granted respondents’ motion to dismiss Baham's complaints on multiple grounds, including that they were barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion and that Baham's request for injunctive relief was moot in light of the fact that respondents had already completed their foreclosure sale. The district court also denied Baham's request for leave to amend, concluding amendment would be futile. This appeal followed.

In his informal brief, Baham wholly fails to address the aforementioned legal grounds relied upon by the district court in dismissing the action; instead, he sets forth various reasons why he believes respondents lacked authority to foreclose. In light of Baham's failure to set forth any argument whatsoever concerning the specific grounds relied upon by the district court, he fails to demonstrate that reversal is warranted, see Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived); Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (providing that the appellate courts need not consider claims unsupported by cogent argument); see also AED, Inc. v. KDC Inv., LLC, 307 P.3d 176, 181 (Idaho 2013) (providing that when a district court sets forth multiple grounds for its decision, the appellant must successfully challenge all of them in order to prevail), and we necessarily

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.