MEMORANDUM ***

Roger and Marcelee Matheson, husband and wife, and their children, James and Jennifer, appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Specialty Insurance Company. We affirm.

After a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that, while the Mathesons regale us with a number of aesthetic assertions about evidentiary conflicts, the issues raised are neither genuine nor material for summary judgment purposes. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Far Out Prods., Inc. v. Oskar, 247 F.3d 986, 992 (9th Cir. 2001); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n., 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the various claims because: there was no showing of bad faith or breach of the covenant of good faith; there was no showing of damages arising out of an unfair practice, assuming that any unfair practice could be discovered in the considerate, rapid, and thoughtful settlement process followed in this case; and there was no basis for punitive damages.1 *643See Nev.Rev.Stat. 686A.310(2), 42.005(1) (2003); Guar. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Potter, 112 Nev. 199, 205-06, 912 P.2d 267, 272 (1996); Am. Excess Ins. Co. v. MGM Grand Hotels, Inc., 102 Nev. 601, 605-06, 729 P.2d 1352, 1354-55 (1986). Moreover, the district court did not err when it determined that all issues were properly before it for decision and ultimately granted summary judgment on those issues. See Celotex, mi U.S. at 326, 106 S.Ct. at 2254; Portsmouth Square, Inc. v. Shareholders Protective Comm., 770 F.2d 866, 868-70 (9th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED.2