IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA SATICOY BAY, LLC SERIES 6132 No. 82349 PEGGOTTY, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellant, vs. FILED COPPERFIELD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; AND FIRST SERVICE NOV 1 0 2021 RESIDENTIAL NEVADA, LLC, D/B/A A. BROWN PREME COURT RED ROCK FINANCIAL SERVICES, DEPU CLERK Res • ondents. ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mary Kay Holthus, Judge.' Having considered the parties arguments and the record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed appellant's complaint. See Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (reviewing de novo a district court's NRCP 12(b)(5) dismissal and recognizing that dismissal is appropriate when "it appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle [the plaintiff] to relief'). In particular, appellant's claims for 'Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 0) I 947A cfgDo Zi - '32324 misrepresentation and breach of NRS 116.1113 fail because respondent had no duty to proactively disclose whether a superpriority tender had been made.2 Compare NRS 116.31162(1)(b)(3)(11) (2017) (requiring an HOA to disclose if tender of the superpriority portion of the lien has been made), with NRS 116.31162 (2013)3 (not requiring any such disclosure); see Halcrow, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 394, 400, 302 P.3d 1148, 1153 (2013) (providing the elements for a negligent misrepresentation claim, one of which is "supply[ing] false information" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nelson u. Heer, 123 Nev. 217, 225, 163 P.3d 420, 426 (2007) (providing the elements for an intentional misrepresentation claim, one of which is making "a false representation"). Finally, because respondent did not do anything unlawful, appellant's civil conspiracy claim necessarily fails.4 See Consol. Generator- 2A1though appellant's complaint alleges generally that it was appellant's "practice and procedure" to "attempt to ascertain whether anyone had attempted to or did tender any payment," the complaint does not allege that appellant specifically asked respondents whether a superpriority tender had been made in this case, much less that respondents misrepresented that a superpriority tender had not been made. Relatedly, although appellant contends that it relied upon the recitals in the foreclosure deed, the recitals made no representation whether a superpriority tender had been made. 3This was the version of the statute in place at the time of the foreclosure sale. 4Appellant's complaint also asserted a claim for violation of NRS Chapter 113. Because appellant does not address the viability of that claim on appeal, we necessarily affirm the dismissal of that claim. SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 2 (01 I 94 7 A .24Dr, Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1311, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (providing that a civil conspiracy requires, among other things, a concerted action, intend[ed] to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.5 C.J. Hardesty e Cadish cc: Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge William C. Turner, Settlement Judge Roger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd. Koch & Scow, LLC The Law Office of Michael W. McKelleb, Esq. PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk 5The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 it» IVSTA i4g4to