Preview:

discovery rule, the statutory period of limitations is tolled until the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered facts supporting a cause of action." (quotation omitted)).
Thereafter, appellant filed a motion for NRCP 60(b) relief. In his motion, appellant maintained that he had neglected to include two factual allegations in his complaint that would have been sufficient to warrant a further tolling of the statute of limitations. Cf. NRCP 60(b)(1) (indicating that relief from a judgment may be granted in instances of excusable neglect). While noting that appellant's motion contained other arguments, the district court expressly considered one of these omitted allegations, found that appellant's failure to include it in his complaint was inexcusable, and further found that the allegation would not have changed the September 17, 2003, accrual date of appellant's cause of action even if it were true. Consequently, it denied appellant's motion.
Appellant now appeals the denial of his NRCP 60(b) motion, which we review for an abuse of discretion. Kahn v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 513, 835 P.2d 790, 792 (1992). On appeal, appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to address his "primary argument"

Download 59619.pdf

Nevada Law