appellant of its pending foreclosure sale. Appellant, however, has not explained why this allegation would entitle appellant to relief if the allegation were proven to be true.' See Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 227-28, 181 P.3d at 672 (recognizing that dismissal of a complaint is proper when the complaint's factual allegations, even when recognized as true, do not satisfy the elements of the causes of action being asserted); cf Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (noting that it is an appellant's responsibility to provide this court with cogent arguments supported by relevant authority). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, C.J.

Hardesty

Parraguirre Douglas

J.

Gibbons Pickering

'In particular, because the underlying complaint was filed by the purchaser at appellant's foreclosure sale, it is unclear how United Legal Services' alleged failure to properly notify appellant of United Legal Services' pending foreclosure sale would have entitled the purchaser to the relief sought in the purchaser's complaint.

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA

(0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge Malcolm Cisneros Maier Gutierrez Ayon, PLLC Atkinson Law Associates, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I947A