Source: http://nevadainsurancelaw.com/the-fiveyear-rule-mandatory-dismissal-if-case-not-brought-to-trial-within-five-years/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:03:36+00:00

Document:
In interpreting the Five-Year Rule, the Nevada Supreme Court has said on numerous of occasions that Rule 41(e) requires dismissal after five years. Harvey’s Wagon Wheel, Inc. v. Van Blitter, 959 F.2d 153, at 156 (9th Cir. 1992), Morgan v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 118 Nev. 315, at 320, 43 P.3d 1036 (2002), Erickson v. One Thirty-Three, Inc., 104 Nev. 755, at 758, 766 P.2d 898 (1988), C.R. Fedrick, Inc. v. Nevada Tax Comm’n, 98 Nev. 387, at 389, 649 P.2d 1372 (1982), Ad-Art, Inc. v. Denison, 94 Nev. 73, at 74, 574 P.2d 1016 (1978), Johnson v. Harber, 94 Nev. 524, at 526, 582 P.2d 800 (1978), Plankinton v. Fifth Judicial Dist. Court, 93 Nev. 643, at 645, 572 P.2d 525 (1977), Bank of Nevada v. Friedman, 86 Nev. 747, at 749, 476 P.2d 172 (1970), Great W. Land & Cattle Corp. v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 86 Nev. 282, at 285, 467 P.2d 1019 (1970), Volpert v. Papagna, 85 Nev. 437, at 440, 456 P.2d 848 (1969), Lindauer v. Allen, 85 Nev. 430, at 435, 456 P.2d 851 (1969), Faye v. Hotel Riviera, Inc., 81 Nev. 350, at 352, 403 P.2d 201 (1965), Smith v. Garside, 81 Nev. 312, at 314, 402 P.2d 246 (1965), Thran v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 79 Nev. 176, 380 P.2d 297 (1963), cited, Dubin v. Harrell, 79 Nev. 467, at 470, 386 P.2d 729 (1963).
One way to avoid the effects of the Five-Year Rule is to get a written stipulation to extend time of trial beyond the five-year period. Erickson v. One Thirty-Three, Inc., 104 Nev. 755, at 758, 766 P.2d 898 (1988), Prostack v. Lowden, 96 Nev. 230, at 231, 606 P.2d 1099 (1980), Thran v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 79 Nev. 176, 380 P.2d 297 (1963).
A second way to avoid the effect of the rule is through tolling brought on by a bankruptcy. Rickard v. Mongomery Ward Co., 120 Nev. 493, 96 P.3d 743 (2004). However, tolling only protects the party that files the bankruptcy and does not protect any other party to the action. Edwards v. Ghandour, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (2007).
A parallel may be found by reference to statutes of limitation. There the underlying policy is to preclude the litigation of stale claims. Here the policy to be served is that, once suit is commenced, it must be carried forward with reasonable diligence unless circumstances exist which excuse delay (if less than five years has passed). The statute of limitations is a defensive weapon granted a party defendant and may be asserted to defeat a claim for relief which has not been filed within the prescribed period. NRCP 8(c). Rule 41(e) invests the court with the power (though inherently possessed) to refuse to hear a case that has been filed but not prosecuted with the diligence required. In either case, i.e., whether the claim is barred by limitations or dismissed for want of prosecution, the judgment entered does not constitute an adjudication on the merits of the claim, in the literal sense, for there has been no hearing on the merits. In neither instance is the substantive cause of action destroyed—just the availability of a remedy to enforce it. A claimant’s right to a “day in court” is subject to reasonable procedural requirements (cf. Thran v. District Court, 79 Nev. 176, 380 P.2d 297) and may be lost by the failure to comply with them.
If the court dismisses the case, it will have discretion to determine whether the dismissal should be with our without prejudice. If the dismissal is without prejudice, a later suit can be brought so long as the statute of limitation has not run. Lighthouse v. Great Western Land & Cattle Corp., 88 Nev. 55, 493 P.2d 296 (1972).
Nevada Follows A Modified "Firefighter's Rule"

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.