Before Justices Cherry, Pickering, and Hardesty. Opinion by Justice Pickering.
In this appeal, the Court addressed the standard required for a party who brings an independent action for relief of judgment under NRCP 60(b). NRCP 60(b) permits relief from judgment by either motion or an independent action. While motions for relief from judgment are governed by specific time deadlines, the reference to an independent action is made only in a savings clause in NRCP 60(b), which states that the rule does not preclude courts from entertaining an independent action to relieve a party from judgment. Since the strict timelines of NRCP 60(b) do not apply to independent actions, the Court explained, such an action should be available only to prevent a “grave miscarriage of justice.” The Court held that in this case, Bonnell’s allegations of inadequate notice regarding summary judgment did not constitute the “grave miscarriage of justice” required to sustain an independent action under NRCP 60(b). Moreover, the Court noted that Respondents’ counsel’s actions did not excuse Bonnell’s failure to bring a motion for relief under NRCP 60(b) within the Rule’s 6-month period. Failing to find anything in the record of either suit that would suggest the threat of a “grave miscarriage of justice,” the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the independent action. Affirmed. (Jeff S. Riesenmy, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
