Opinion ID: 2266133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Nature and timing of an NRS 108.2275 hearing

Text: In deciding the motion to expunge the lien, the district court held two hearings, ordered two depositions, and received affidavits. Neither party requested a full evidentiary hearing. J.D. Construction now argues that it was a violation of due process for the district court to rule on an NRS 108.2275 motion based solely upon affidavits and that the district court needed to hold an evidentiary hearing and observe live testimony. IBEX argues a mechanic's lien does not create a property right, but is instead a taking without due process that is only permissible because of the expedited hearing available pursuant to NRS 108.2275. IBEX also argues that J.D. Construction was afforded due process; there were two hearings with the opportunity for both sides to present their case through motions and affidavits, as well as the opportunity to conduct discovery in between the two hearings. We agree. NRS 108.2275(2) requires a party to set forth its legal and factual grounds for its motion to expunge, supported by an affidavit and documentary evidence. NRCP 43(c) provides that [w]hen a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions. Moreover, NRCP 78 provides that [t]o expedite its business, the court may make provision by rule or order for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing upon brief written statements of reasons in support and opposition. We conclude that NRS 108.2275 and the NRCP do not require an evidentiary hearing; instead, as discussed further below, a decision based on affidavits and deposition testimony can satisfy due process.