Jorrin v. State, Employment Security Division
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Nevada?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Nevada. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing a petition for judicial review challenging a decision by the Nevada Employment Security Division's (NESD) Board of Review, holding that, based on its plain language, Nev. R. Civ. P. 6(d)'s three-day mailing rule does not apply to extend the time period for filing a petition for judicial review under Nev. Rev. Stat. 612.531(1).
After she was denied unemployment benefits Appellant filed a petition for judicial review in the district court. The district court granted NESD's motion to dismiss, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because Appellant had filed it a day late. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rule 6(d) did not apply in this case, and the district court correctly dismissed the untimely petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Download PDF
139 Nev., Advance Opinion 0 6:1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA HELEN JORRIN, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION; LYNDA PARVEN, IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIWSION; J. THOMAS SUSICH, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW; AND CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondents. No. 85155 FILE SEP 07 20 ELI H A. BROWN UP E GRT BY IEF DEPUTY CLERK Appeal from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review in an administrative law case. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Adriana Escobar, Judge. Affirmed. Nevada Legal Services and Kristopher S. Pre, Las Vegas, for Appellant. Clark County School District, Office of the General Counsel and Patrick J. Murch, Las Vegas, for Respondent Clark County School District. State of Nevada/DETR and Carolyn M. Broussard and David Kalo Neidert, Carson City, for Respondents Lynda Parven, J. Thomas Susich, and the State of Nevada Employment Security Division. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ((Y) I947A .4D," 73- vi231 SUPREME THE BEFORE PARRAGUIRRE, JJ. COURT, HERNDON, LEE, and OPINION PER CURIAM: We have previously noted that the former version of NRCP 6(d), which adds three days to certain time periods when service is made by mail, applied to the time period for filing a petition for judicial review challenging a decision by the Nevada Employment Security Division's (NESD) Board of Rev,iew under NRS 612.530(1). Kame v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 105 Nev. 22, 23 n.1: 769 P.2d 66, 67 n.1 (1989) (citing former NRCP 6). In revisiting this issue, we now conclude that, based on its plain language, NRCP 6(d)'s threeday mailing rule does not apply to extend the time period for filing a petition for judicial review under NRS 612.530(1) and overrule Kame to the exteht it holds otherwise. In this case, because the petition was filed beyond the statutory time period, the district court properly dismissed the petition, and we therefore affirm. FACTS Appellant Helen Jorrin sought and was denied unemployment benefits. Aft.er an appeals referee confirmed the denial of benefits, she sought relief from NESD's Board of Review. The letter denying the request was mailed on August 27, 2021, stating that the Board •of Review's decision becine final as of September 7, 2021. It further stated that Jorrin had until SePtember 20, 2021, to appeal that decision. Jorrin filed her appeal, a petition for judicial review to the district court, on September 21, 2021. NESD moved for dismissal, arguing that the untimeliness of Jorrin's petition stripped the district court of jurisdiction over the case. The district court granted NESD's motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the• SUPREME COURT OF ' NEVADA (0) I 947A .(*.•> 2 petition because jorrin had filed it a day late. The district court also denied Jortin's motion to alter or amend the judgment, and Jorrin now appeal,s. DISCUSSION Jorrin asserts that her petition was timely because NESD served its decision by mail and thus NRCP 6(d) provided three additional days to file the petition. •She therefóre argues that she had until. September 23 to file her petition and the district court erred in dismissing her petition as untimely. NESD argues that NRCP 6(d) does not apply and the.district court correctly granted dismissal because it lacked jurisdiction over Jorrin's untimely petition. Because this case present§ an issue of statutory construction, our review is de novo. See Hardin v. Jones, 102 Nev. 469, 470, 727 P.2d 551, 552 (1986) (reviewing the proper Construction of a statutory- appeal period de novo because it presents "a legal, rather than a factual, question"). NRCP 6(d) provides that "[w]hen a party may •or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made [by mail], 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)." The rule thus applies only when service triggers the time for a party to act. See. id. The former version of the rule, NRCP 6(e) (1953), amended by ADkT 522 (Order Amending the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Nevada Electronic Filing and Comiersion Rules, Dec. 31, 2018), similarly based its application on service, stating that "[w]henevet a party has the right or is required to do some act within a proscribed period after service of a notice . . . upon him and the notice. . is served upon him by mail, 3 days shall be added to the prescribed period." We have therefore applied the former version of NRCP 6(d) to extend deadlines in adininistrative cases where a statute specifies that a party has to act within a certain time after being served. For example, we applied the former SUPREME COURT OF N EVADA 3 (0) I 947A NRCP 6(d) to extend the tiine to administratively apPeal the initial.. denial of unemployment benefits to an appeal referee under NRS 612.495(1) (1981), arnended by A.B. 502, 73d Leg. (Nev. 2005), which provided "Nile appeal must be filed within 10 days after the date of mailing, electronic transmission or personal service of the -?notice of determination or redetermination." See Hardin, 102 Nev. at 2170 n.2, 471, 727 P.2d at 551 ri.2, 552.1 We also applied the former version of NRCP 6(d) to the 30-day time period to file a petition for judicial review of an agency decision under NRS 233B.130(2)(c) (2005), amended by A.B. 94, 74th Leg. (Nev. 2007), where the 30-day period begins "after service of the final agency decision." See. Mikohn Gaming v. Espinosa, 122 Nev. 593, 598, 137 P.3d 1150, 1154 (2006).2 In this case, the statute setting the time to file a petition for judicial review from the NESD Board of Review's determination is NRS 612.530(1). We have held that NRS 612.530(1)'s requirements "are jurisdictional and mandatory." Bd. of Review, Nev. Dep't of Emp't, Training & Rehab. v. Second Judicial Di.st. Court, 133 Nev. 253, 255, 396 P.3d 795, 797'r (2017). Under that statute, a party has "11 days after the deciSion of the [NESD] Board of Review has become final" to file a petition for judicial , review. NRS 612.530(1). Because the statute uses the date the decision becennes final, rather than the decision's service date, to trigger the time to 'The amendment to NRS 612.495 changed the time to administratively appeal from 10 days to 11, but the relevant language remains the same. NRS 612.495(1). amendment to NRS 233B.130 changed the numbering of the NRS subsections, but the relevant language remains the same. 233B.130(2)(d). 2 The SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) I947A file a petition, NRCP 6(d) does not apply by its plain language. See Leven v. Frey, 123 Nev. 399, 403, 168 P.3d 712, 715 (2007) ("[W]hen a statute's language is plain and its meaning clear, the courts will apply that plain language."). Jorrin's reliance on Hardin and Mikohn is unavailing because• the triggering statutes in those cases were based on the service of the agency's decision, as noted above. Indeed, the differences in the statutory language between those statutes and NRS 612.530(1) lend further support to dur conclusion. See State, Dep't of Bus: & Indus. v. Titlemax of Nev., Inc., 137 Nev. 540, 545, 495 P.3d 506, 510 (2021) (stating that, when discussing statutory interpretation, "this court presume[s] that the variation in• language [between statutes] indicates a variation in meaning" (internal quotation marks omitted) (first alteration in original)). And we note that the time between the mailing of the decision letter, August 27, and the date the decision became final, triggering the 11-day timeline to file a petition for judicial review, September 7, allowed more time for mailing than the 3 days provided by NRCP 6(d). We recognize that we previously applied the former version of NRCP 6(d) to extend the time to file a petition for judicial review of an NESD Board of Review decision. See Kame, 105 Nev. at 23 n.1, 769 P.2d at 67 n.1. The main issue in that case, however, was whether filing the petition in an incorrect format tolled the time for filing, and the opinion did not address former NRCP 6(d)'s service language or that the time to file a petition under NRS 612.530(1) is based on the date the decision becomes final rather than when it is served. See generally id. As the issue of whether the three-day mailing rule applied to NRS 612.530(1) was not squarely' presented to or decided by the court in Kame, that decision does not "hold [a] position[] of permanence in this court's jurisprudence" such that the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) /947A 410z stare decisis doctrine would compel against revisiting it. See Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 597-97 & p.65 188 P.3d 1112, 1124 & n.65 (2008) (discussing when the stare decisis doctrine applies such that the previous decision should not be overruled without "weighty and conclusive reasons" for doing so (internal quotation marks omitted)). Even if we concluded Kame's application of the three-day 'nailing rule constituted stare deciSis, overruling the decision is appropriate, as it was "badly reasoned" for the reasons Stated above. Egan v. Chambers, 129 Nev. 239; 243, 299 P.3d 364, 367 (2013) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. - 808; 827 (1991)). Therefore, to the extent Karne can be read to hold that the three-day mailing rule under NRCP 6(d) can apply to extend the time tO file a petition for judicial review under NRS 612.530(1), we explicitly overrule it. Here, as stated in NESD's decision letter, its decision became final on September 7, such that any petition for judicial review had tò be filed by. September 20.3 NRCP 6(d) does not apply to extend that deadline. Thus, Jorrin's petition was untimely, and the district court properly • '33 Nev. at 255, 396 dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. See Bd. of Review, 1 P.3d at 797. As the district court correctly dismissed the petition, it also did not: abuse its discretion in denying Jorrin's motion to alter or amend. the dismissal order. See AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589, 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) (reYiewing an order denying suet' relief for an abuse of discretion). . 3The 11-day time period ended on September 18, a Saturday, and was See NRCP 6(a)(1)(C) therefore extended to the following Monday. (providing that, when a statute does not provide how to compute time, if the last day of the period "is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday"). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) I947A 4E* CONCLUSION We overrule Kame v. Employment Security Department, 105 Nev. 22, 769 P.2d 66 (1989), to the extent it holds that NRCP 6(d)'s threeday mailing period can extend the deadline to file a petition for judicial review under NRS 612.530(1). The district court did not apply NRCP 6(d) in this case and correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Jorrin's untimely petition for judicial review. We therefore affirm the district court's orders.4 J. Parraguirre Lee. opinion has been circulated among all justicOs of this court, any two of whom under IOP 13(b) may request en banc review of a case. The two votes needed to require en banc review in the first instance of the question of overruling Kame were not cast. 4 This SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 7 (0) 1947A
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
