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"—i.e., the other omitted factual allegation. This other 

allegation was that, from 2000 through 2005, one of the respondents 

intentionally misinformed appellant that the shotgun pellets were not 

causing his health problems. 

Without expressly stating as much, the district court's order 

rejected appellant's "primary argument" for the same reason it rejected his 

other argument: appellant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect so as to 

warrant relief from the judgment. Because nothing prevented appellant 

from including both omitted factual allegations in his complaint, the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
desty 

b64.31 

Parraguirre 

Cherry 

, J. 

district court was within its discretion when it found that appellant had 

inexcusably neglected to do so. NRCP 60(b)(1); Kahn, 108 Nev. at 513, 835 

P.2d at 792. Moreover, even if the unaddressed allegation were true, its 

inclusion in appellant's complaint would not have changed the district 

court's determination that appellant's cause of action accrued no later 

than September 17, 2003. 1Accordingly, the district court was within its 

discretion to deny appellant's request for NRCP 60(b) relief, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

'Specifically, "[u]nder the 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." Bemis, 114 Nev. at 

1024, 967 P.2d at 440 (emphasis added) (quotation omitted). Appellant's 

own complaint stated that two doctors diagnosed him as having an allergic 

reaction to the shotgun pellets in "late 1999, early 2000," and it further 

stated that the adverse witness in appellant's 2003 trial attributed his 

health problems to the pellets. Thus, even if one of the respondents did 

intentionally misinform appellant between 2000 and 2005 as to the cause 

of his health problems, appellant had ample facts before him during this 

same time period to support his cause of action. Id. 

2To the extent that appellant raises other allegations of error, we 

conclude that these allegations do not warrant reversal of the district 

court's order. 

3 
cc: Seventh Judicial District Court, Department 2 

Eric Holton 

Attorney General/Carson City 

White Pine County Clerk 

4