On appeal, appellant argues that the district court's 

conclusion that the petition was untimely was incorrect, and requested 

that the matter be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of 

the petition. Respondents argue that the district court's order could be 

interpreted as meaning that no substantive petition with argument was 

ever timely filed and is consequently correct, or in the alternative, that the 

record before the district court would support denying the petition for 

judicial review. 

This court reviews a district court's factual determinations 

deferentially, Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704 

(2009) (explaining that a "district court's factual findings. . . are given 

deference and will be upheld if not clearly erroneous and if supported by 

substantial evidence"), and its legal determinations de novo. Clark 

County v. Sun State Properties, 119 Nev. 329, 334, 72 P.3d 954, 957 

(2003). Absent factual or legal error, the choice of sanction in an FMP 

judicial review proceeding is committed to the sound discretion of the 

district court. Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. 255 P.3d 

1281, 1287 (2011). To obtain an FMP certificate, a deed of trust 

beneficiary must: (1) attend the mediation; (2) participate in good faith; (3) 

bring the required documents; and (4) if attending through a 

representative, have a person present with authority to modify the loan or 

access to such a person. NRS 107.086(4), (5); Leyva v. National Default 

Servicing Corp., 127 Nev. , 255 P.3d 1275, 1278-79 (2011). 

Having reviewed record on appeal, and considering the 

arguments of the parties, we conclude that the district court properly 

denied the petition for judicial review. Although the district court order 

incorrectly stated that no petition was timely filed, the petition that 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A (91,11(7.• 

2 
appellant filed failed to assert any factual allegations concerning 

noncompliance or bad faith by respondents, and we conclude that the 

district court acted within its discretion in denying appellant's request for 

additional time to amend his petition. Cf. Kantor v. Kantor, 116 Nev. 886, 

891, 8 P.3d 825, 828 (holding that after a responsive pleading is filed, the 

district court has the discretion to permit or deny a complaint's 

amendment, and undue delay is a valid reason to deny amendment). In 

light of the lack of argument in the petition and the mediator's statement 

that indicated full compliance by respondents, we conclude that the 

district court had substantial evidence before it to deny the petition for 

judicial review after conducting a de novo review.' See FMR 21 (5) (2011) 

(amended and renumbered FMR 21 (6) (effective January 1, 2013)). Thus, 

we conclude that the district court reached the proper result in declining 

to order an evidentiary hearing, see FMR 21(1) (2011) (amended and 

renumbered FMR 21(2) (stating that district court shall conduct hearings 

to the extent it deems necessary)), denying the petition, and in ordering an 

FMP certificate to issue. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

_ —

Douglas Sitta 

'There is likewise nothing in the record below that would indicate 

any failure by respondents that would preclude the issuance of an FMP 

certificate. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

3 
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 14 

Cogburn Law Offices 

Smith Larsen & Wixom 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 10'D 

4