MORRISON v. NEIL (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Morrison filed the underlying action against respondents, alleging they engaged in various forms of tortious or otherwise illegal conduct. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that Morrison's claims were or should have been brought in multiple previous lawsuits involving the same parties such that they are barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Respondents further argued that, to the extent the claims are not so barred, Morrison's allegations are groundless and cannot be supported with admissible evidence. For support, respondents provided declarations attesting that they have had little to no contact with Morrison for over a decade and that they did not engage in any of the conduct alleged in Morrison's complaint. The district court agreed with respondents, concluding that Morrison's claims are precluded and, to the extent they are not, Morrison failed to oppose respondents' motion or appear at the hearing to demonstrate any genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment. This appeal followed.

In her briefing on appeal, Morrison simply reiterates the allegations against respondents from her complaint and further builds upon them. She does not in any way address the district court's substantive conclusions regarding the doctrine of claim preclusion, see Boca Park Martketplaee Syndications Grp., LLC v. Higco, Inc., 133 Nev. 923, 924-25, 407 P.3d 761, 763 (2017) (“Claim preclusion makes a valid final judgment conclusive on the parties and ordinarily bars a later action based on the claims that were or could have been asserted in the first case.”), or her failure to oppose respondents’ motion for summary judgment and produce evidence contrary to respondents’ declarations categorically denying that they engaged in any of the conduct alleged in the complaint. See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 602-03, 172 P.3d 131, 134 (2007) (explaining the moving and opposing parties’ respective burdens of production and persuasion on summary judgment).

In light of her failure to cogently challenge the actual grounds relied upon by the district court, Morrison has failed 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 Invs., 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.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We likewise deny any other requests for relief currently pending before this court.