to enlarge. See Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. , 

, 245 P.M 1198, 1201 (2010) (recognizing that when a motion to 

enlarge the time for service is filed after NRCP 4(i)'s 120-day time frame 

has expired, the party seeking the enlargement must demonstrate good 

cause for failing to timely move for the enlargement). The district court 

granted the motion, and this appeal followed. 

On appeal, appellant contends that the district court abused 

its discretion in granting respondent's motion to dismiss. Id. at , 245 

P.3d at 1200 (explaining that this court reviews a district court order 

granting a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process or to timely 

move for an enlargement for an abuse of discretion). We agree. The only 

reason identified by the district court regarding why it found an absence of 

good cause for appellant's failure to timely move for an enlargement was 

that respondent was prejudiced. Even assuming that respondent was 

prejudiced, this factor is not relevant to the consideration of whether good 

cause existed for appellant's failure to timely move for an enlargement. 

See id. at , 245 P.3d at 1201 (identifying several relevant factors and 

indicating that any other factor a district court considers when 

determining whether good cause exists for filing an untimely enlargement 

motion should "relate to difficulties encountered by a party in attempting 

service"). 

In contrast, the record on appeal demonstrates that the 

relevant factors weigh in favor of the existence of good cause for 

...continued 

that these reasons could provide alternative bases for affirmance. See 

Ford v. Showboat Operating Co., 110 Nev. 752, 755, 877 P.2d 546, 548 

(1994). Thus, we need not consider these issues. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
appellant's failure to timely file her enlargement motion. Specifically, 

respondent had knowledge of the lawsuit's existence, and appellant 

exercised reasonable diligence to serve respondent within the 120-day 

time frame upon learning midway through the time frame that 

respondent's insurer no longer planned to represent respondent in the 

underlying action. Id. (recognizing that a defendant's knowledge of the 

action and a plaintiffs diligence in attempting service are relevant 

factors). Moreover, appellant's failure to formally file the motion in a 

timely manner was due in part to her belief that she was following "local 

practice" in submitting the motion directly to chambers and due in further 

part to the court's own delay in granting the motion. Because it was 

reasonable for appellant to seek a ruling on her motion before continuing 

her attempts to serve respondent, this consideration likewise supports the 

existence of good cause. Id. 

Thus, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion 

when it found that appellant lacked good cause for failing to timely file her 

enlargement motion. Id. at , 245 P.3d at 1200. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

Hardesty 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

OD 1947A 
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

Howard Roitman, Settlement Judge 

James S. Kent 

Law Office of Daniel Marks 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A