Design 3.2 v. Bank of New York Mellon

erroneous interpretation of the controlling law and did not reach the other issues colorably asserted.' Accordingly, we

REVERSE the order granting summary judgment AND REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Saitta ibbons cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 15 James S. Kent

Patrick K. McKnight

Akerman LLP/Las Vegas

Malcolm Cisneros

Eighth District Court Clerk

'Respondent contends that appellant's arguments regarding NRS 116.3116(2) have been waived since appellant failed to raise those arguments in opposing respondent's motion for summary judgment. We disagree, as appellant raised those arguments in its July 26, 2012, motion for declaratory relief, which was part of the district court record when the district court granted summary judgment in respondent's favor. See Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that "[t]he district court's oral pronouncement from the bench [or] the clerk's minute order. . . are ineffective for any purpose").

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A eio