Motion to Dismiss - Nevada

[____________________] JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

[____________________] COUNTY, NEVADA

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

PURSUANT TO NRCP 12(b)

[DEFENDANT'S FULL NAME] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court pursuant to NRCP 12(b) (as amended March 1, 2019) to dismiss the Complaint filed by [PLAINTIFF'S FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff"), with prejudice, on the grounds set forth below.

IMPORTANT PREFATORY NOTE: 2019 NRCP AMENDMENTS

On March 1, 2019, the Nevada Supreme Court's comprehensive amendments to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP) took effect. These amendments substantially rewrote the NRCP to conform more closely to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Key changes relevant to motions to dismiss include:

• NRCP 12(b) was restructured to more closely track FRCP 12(b), but Nevada's rule enumerates only six defenses, not seven. Nevada deliberately did not adopt "improper venue" as a Rule 12(b) ground — the official Nevada Supreme Court commentary redlining NRCP 12 against the FRCP explains that "the federal defense of improper venue is deleted, since improper venue is not a defense under state practice, but is a ground for change of venue." Venue objections in Nevada are raised by a motion to change venue under NRS 13.050, not by a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss;
• NRCP 8(a) now requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," mirroring the federal pleading standard;
• The former Nevada "demurrer" practice was eliminated;
• Answer deadline was changed from 20 days (under former NRCP) to 21 days (to mirror the federal rule);
• Consolidation of pre-answer motions is now required under NRCP 12(g).

Counsel must cite to the post-2019 rules. References to the pre-2019 NRCP or Nevada demurrer practice are obsolete. Counsel must also not import the federal seven-ground FRCP 12(b) list wholesale — Nevada's six grounds are renumbered relative to FRCP once venue is removed (see Section III below).

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed this action on [__/__/____], alleging [________________________________]. For the reasons set forth herein, the Complaint must be dismissed because [________________________________].

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Plaintiff filed the Complaint on [__/__/____].

2. Defendant was served with the Summons and Complaint on [__/__/____].

3. This Motion is timely filed. Under NRCP 12(b), a pre-answer motion to dismiss must be made before or simultaneously with the responsive pleading. The answer would otherwise be due within 21 days after service of the summons and complaint under NRCP 12(a)(1)(A).

4. Pursuant to NRCP 12(g)(2), a party that makes a motion under NRCP 12 must raise all defenses and objections then available. Defendant raises all applicable defenses in this single motion to comply with the consolidation requirement.

III. GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL

Defendant moves to dismiss on the following grounds under NRCP 12(b) (check all that apply). Nevada's NRCP 12(b) enumerates only six defenses — it does not include "improper venue" (unlike FRCP 12(b)). A challenge to venue is raised separately, by a motion to change venue under NRS 13.050, and is included below for completeness but is not itself an NRCP 12(b) ground:

☐ NRCP 12(b)(1) — Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in the Complaint because [________________________________].

☐ NRCP 12(b)(2) — Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada to satisfy due process. See NRS 14.065 (Nevada Long-Arm Statute).

☐ NRCP 12(b)(3) — Insufficient Process
The process served upon Defendant was insufficient because [________________________________].

☐ NRCP 12(b)(4) — Insufficient Service of Process
Service of process was insufficient because [________________________________], in violation of NRCP 4.2.

☐ NRCP 12(b)(5) — Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted
The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for relief under Nevada's pleading standard.

☐ NRCP 12(b)(6) — Failure to Join a Required Party
The Complaint fails to join a required party under NRCP 19, specifically [________________________________], whose absence prevents the Court from according complete relief.

☐ Improper Venue — Motion to Change Venue Under NRS 13.050 (not an NRCP 12(b) ground)
Venue is improper in [____________________] County because [________________________________]. Proper venue lies in [____________________] County pursuant to NRS 13.010, 13.040, and 13.050. Note: under NRS 13.050(1)(a), a demand for change of venue on this basis generally must be made in writing before the time for answering expires, and it should be raised together with (or before) any NRCP 12(b) motion so as not to be treated as untimely.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. Plaintiff is [________________________________], a [resident/entity] of [____________________].

6. Defendant is [________________________________], a [resident/entity] of [____________________].

7. The Complaint asserts [____] count(s) for [________________________________].

8. Specifically, the Complaint alleges [________________________________].

9. The Complaint further alleges [________________________________].

10. [Continue with additional factual paragraphs as necessary, citing specific Complaint paragraphs.]

V. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Nevada's Post-2019 Pleading Standard

Following the 2019 NRCP amendments, Nevada adopted language for NRCP 8(a) that mirrors FRCP 8(a), requiring "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." However, the Nevada Supreme Court's Advisory Committee noted in adopting the 2019 amendments that, by adopting the federal rule text, it did not intend to automatically import the federal Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, leaving the question of whether Nevada should adopt that standard to judicial development.

As of the current date, Nevada's appellate courts continue to apply the traditional Nevada standard rather than the federal Twombly/Iqbal "plausibility" standard. Both before and after the 2019 amendments, the Nevada Supreme Court has held that dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief, accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 (2008); Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 823–24 (2009) (applying the same standard, citing Lubin v. Kunin, 117 Nev. 107, 110–11 (2001), and Malfabon v. Garcia, 111 Nev. 793, 796 (1995)). Counsel should not assert, without independent post-2019 authority, that Nevada has adopted the federal "plausible on its face" language — no Nevada Supreme Court decision applying that phrase to NRCP 12(b)(5) has been verified as of this review, and the cases most often cited for a "plausibility" gloss (including Sanchez) in fact apply the older beyond-a-doubt/no-set-of-facts formulation.

On a motion under NRCP 12(b)(5), the Court must:

1. Accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true;
2. Draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor; and
3. Determine whether it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts entitling it to relief.

The Court need not accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, formulaic recitations of elements, or wholly conclusory statements.

B. Failure to State a Claim — NRCP 12(b)(5)

(Include if NRCP 12(b)(5) is checked)

1. Applicable Standard

To survive a motion to dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(5), the complaint must be legally sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief if its well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true; dismissal is proper only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts which would entitle it to relief. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 (2008). See discussion of NRCP 8(a) above.

2. Count [____] — [Name of Claim]

Under Nevada law, to state a claim for [________________________________], a plaintiff must allege:
(1) [________________________________];
(2) [________________________________];
(3) [________________________________]; and
(4) [________________________________].

See [Nevada case citation].

The Complaint fails to state this claim because:

a. Paragraph [____] of the Complaint states: "[________________________________]." This is a bare legal conclusion without supporting factual content.

b. The Complaint does not allege [________________________________], which is an essential element of this claim.

c. Even accepting all factual allegations as true and drawing all inferences in Plaintiff's favor, the Complaint does not state a claim for [________________________________] because, beyond a doubt, Plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling it to relief on [________________________________].

3. Count [____] — [Name of Additional Claim]

[Repeat for each additional count.]

C. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction — NRCP 12(b)(1)

(Include if NRCP 12(b)(1) is checked)

Nevada district courts have general jurisdiction over civil matters under Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6 (original jurisdiction in all cases excluded by law from the jurisdiction of justice courts). (Note: NRS 3.223 addresses only the family court's jurisdiction and should not be cited as authority for the district court's general civil jurisdiction; the $15,000 justice-court threshold appears at NRS 4.370.) However, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking here because [________________________________].

Subject matter jurisdiction is a non-waivable defect. Under NRCP 12(h)(3), whenever it appears that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. In this case, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because [________________________________].

D. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction — NRCP 12(b)(2)

(Include if NRCP 12(b)(2) is checked)

Nevada's long-arm statute, NRS 14.065, extends personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants to the maximum extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To establish personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must show:

1. That Defendant has minimum contacts with Nevada — either:
   - Specific jurisdiction: the claims arise out of or relate to Defendant's Nevada contacts; or
   - General jurisdiction: Defendant's contacts are so continuous and systematic as to render it "essentially at home" in Nevada; and

2. That exercising jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

In this case, Defendant lacks the requisite minimum contacts with Nevada because [________________________________]. Defendant is not incorporated in Nevada, does not maintain a principal place of business in Nevada, and the claims in this action do not arise from any Nevada-based activity.

E. Improper Venue — Motion to Change Venue Under NRS 13.050 (Not an NRCP 12(b) Ground)

(Include if venue is being challenged)

Nevada does not list improper venue among the enumerated NRCP 12(b) defenses. The Nevada Supreme Court's commentary adopting the 2019 NRCP amendments expressly deleted the federal "improper venue" defense from Rule 12(b), explaining that improper venue "is not a defense under state practice, but is a ground for change of venue." Accordingly, this ground is raised as a separate motion to change venue under NRS 13.050, not as part of the NRCP 12(b) motion, though Defendant is filing it concurrently with this Motion for the Court's convenience.

Nevada venue is governed by NRS 13.010 et seq. For most civil actions, venue is proper in the county where:

• Any defendant resides at the time of commencement of the action;
• The obligation is to be performed, for contract actions; or
• The property that is the subject of the action is situated, for real-property actions.

See NRS 13.010; NRS 13.040. The court may change venue under NRS 13.050(2) if, among other grounds, the county designated is not the proper county, an impartial proceeding cannot be had there, or the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

In this case, venue is improper in [____________________] County because [________________________________]. The proper venue is [____________________] County because [________________________________]. Note: under NRS 13.050(1)(a), the demand for change of venue on the ground that the designated county is improper generally must be made in writing before the time for answering expires.

F. Insufficient Service of Process — NRCP 12(b)(4)

(Include if NRCP 12(b)(4) is checked)

Under NRCP 4.2, service of process must be accomplished in the manner specified by rule. For service on an entity or association formed under, registered to do business in, or with a registered agent in Nevada, process must be served upon the registered agent, any officer or director of a corporation, or another person or method specified by the rule. See NRCP 4.2(c)(1)(A).

In this case, service was defective because [________________________________]. Specifically, [________________________________]. As a result, this Court has not acquired personal jurisdiction over Defendant through proper service of process, and the Complaint must be dismissed.

G. Failure to Join a Required Party — NRCP 12(b)(6)

(Include if NRCP 12(b)(6) is checked)

Under NRCP 19, a party is required to be joined if:
(a) In the party's absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among the existing parties; or
(b) The party claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and disposing of the action without the party may impair the party's ability to protect that interest, or may leave existing parties subject to inconsistent obligations.

In this case, [________________________________] is a required party because [________________________________]. Without [________________________________]'s joinder, complete relief cannot be granted to any party, and/or the existing parties face the risk of inconsistent obligations. The action should be dismissed for failure to join this required party.

VI. NEVADA PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

A. Deadlines

Also file, before the time to answer expires, any separate motion to change venue under NRS 13.050(1)(a) if venue is contested — that deadline runs independently of the Rule 12 consolidation rules discussed below.

See NRCP 12(a)(4) (effect of a pre-answer motion on answer deadline).

B. Consolidation of Defenses

Under NRCP 12(g)(2), a party that makes a pre-answer motion must raise all available Rule 12 defenses and objections in that motion, or waive those not raised (subject to the exceptions in NRCP 12(h)). Nevada's NRCP 12(b) has only six enumerated defenses; venue is not one of them (see Section III above) and is governed instead by the separate waiver rule in NRS 13.050(1)(a).

Preserved defenses (may be raised at any time; NRCP 12(h)(2)–(3)):

• Subject matter jurisdiction (NRCP 12(b)(1)) — non-waivable; the court must dismiss sua sponte if it appears at any time that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking
• Failure to state a claim (NRCP 12(b)(5))
• Failure to join a required party under Rule 19 (NRCP 12(b)(6))

Waivable defenses (must be raised in the first Rule 12 motion or in the answer; NRCP 12(h)(1)):

• Personal jurisdiction (NRCP 12(b)(2))
• Insufficient process (NRCP 12(b)(3))
• Insufficient service of process (NRCP 12(b)(4))

C. Electronic Filing

Nevada does not use a single, unified e-filing platform for all district courts. Counsel must confirm the current system for the filing county:

• Clark County (Eighth Judicial District): Filings are made through Odyssey File & Serve, currently being migrated to the new eFileNV portal at https://efilenv.tylertech.cloud/OfsEfsp/ui/landing. Clark County has announced that the prior File & Serve portal will be fully deprecated on July 15, 2026; counsel should confirm the operative URL with the Clerk of the Eighth Judicial District Court before filing.
• Washoe County (Second Judicial District): Filings are made through eFlex at https://wceflex.washoecourts.com/.
• Nevada Supreme Court statewide e-filing portal (also branded "eFlex"; distinct from Washoe County's system): https://efiling-nv.com/portal/.

Attorneys practicing in Nevada must be registered in the applicable court's e-filing system. Filings must comply with technical requirements including PDF format, file size limits, and required metadata. Counsel should not assume "eFlex" is the Clark County system — Clark County's platform is Odyssey File & Serve / eFileNV.

D. Local Rules

Nevada district courts may have local rules governing briefing schedules, page limits, and oral argument procedures. Counsel must consult the local rules for the specific district.

• Clark County (Eighth Judicial District): EDCR 2.20 et seq. (motion practice)
• Washoe County (Second Judicial District): Local Rules applicable to civil motions

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice;

2. In the alternative, dismiss the specific claims identified above;

3. Award Defendant its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent permitted by law;

4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]
    [Attorney's Full Name]
    Nevada Bar No. [____________________]
    [Firm Address]
    [City], Nevada [____]
    Telephone: ([____]) [____]-[________]
    Facsimile: ([____]) [____]-[________]
    Email: [________________________________]

Attorney for Defendant [____________________]

Dated: [__/__/____]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was served upon all counsel of record through the applicable Nevada e-filing system for this county (Odyssey File & Serve / eFileNV in Clark County, or eFlex in Washoe County and the Nevada Supreme Court's statewide portal), which provides notice of filing to all registered users, and/or by the following method:

Plaintiff's Counsel:
[Attorney's Full Name]
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[City], Nevada [____]
Email: [________________________________]

☐ Via Nevada Electronic Filing System (Odyssey File & Serve / eFileNV in Clark County; eFlex in Washoe County)
☐ Via United States Mail, First-Class, postage prepaid
☐ Via Email (with consent)
☐ Via Hand Delivery

[________________________________]
[Attorney's Name]
Dated: [__/__/____]

EXHIBIT LIST

NEVADA-SPECIFIC NOTES FOR COUNSEL

1. 2019 Amendments — Critical: The 2019 NRCP amendments represent a fundamental overhaul of Nevada civil procedure. All citations and arguments should reference the post-2019 rules. Do not cite the former Nevada NRCP or demurrer cases.

2. Nevada's NRCP 12(b) Has Six Grounds, Not Seven: Do not import the federal FRCP 12(b) seven-ground list wholesale. Nevada deliberately omitted "improper venue" from Rule 12(b) — venue is challenged only by a motion to change venue under NRS 13.050. The remaining six grounds are renumbered accordingly (see Section III).

3. Beyond-a-Doubt Standard, Not Federal Plausibility: Nevada has not adopted the federal Twombly/Iqbal "plausibility" standard for NRCP 12(b)(5) motions. Nevada's appellate courts continue to apply the traditional "beyond a doubt that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts" standard. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228 (2008); Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 823–24 (2009). Do not cite Nevada cases for a "plausible on its face" holding unless independently verified.

4. 21-Day Answer Deadline: The pre-2019 deadline was 20 days. Post-2019, it is 21 days to mirror the federal rule. Calendar accordingly.

5. Demurrer is Abolished: The former Nevada demurrer has been replaced by the NRCP 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Do not use "demurrer" terminology.

6. Nevada Long-Arm Statute (NRS 14.065): Unlike some states, Nevada's long-arm statute explicitly extends to the constitutional limit. The analysis is purely a due process minimum contacts analysis.

7. No Single E-Filing System: Clark County (Eighth Judicial District) uses Odyssey File & Serve, migrating to the new eFileNV portal (old Clark County portal deprecated July 15, 2026). Washoe County (Second Judicial District) and the Nevada Supreme Court's statewide portal use eFlex — a different platform from Clark County's. Verify the applicable e-filing platform and any pending migration deadlines for the county where the action is filed.

8. Statute of Limitations: Nevada's general limitations period is 6 years for written contracts (NRS 11.190(1)(b)), 4 years for oral contracts (NRS 11.190(2)(c)), and 2 years for personal injury or wrongful death (NRS 11.190(4)(e)) — not 3 years. Malpractice against attorneys or veterinarians specifically is governed by NRS 11.207: 4 years after the plaintiff sustains damage, or 2 years after discovery of the facts constituting the cause of action, whichever occurs earlier — this is not a flat "2-year" period, and NRS 11.207 does not apply to professions generally. Other professions have their own statutes (e.g., medical malpractice under NRS 41A.097; accountant malpractice under NRS 11.2075). Identify the applicable period and statute for the specific claims and profession at issue.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (current through amendments to Oct. 31, 2025): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/courtrules/nrcp.html
• NRCP 12 Redlined Against FRCP (official commentary confirming Nevada deleted "improper venue" from Rule 12(b)): https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/14315/nrcp_12.pdf
• NRS Chapter 13 (Place of Trial; venue and change of venue, including NRS 13.050): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-013.html
• NRS Chapter 14 (Long-Arm Jurisdiction, NRS 14.065): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-014.html
• NRS Chapter 11 (Limitation of Actions, including NRS 11.190 and NRS 11.207): https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-011.html
• Clark County (Eighth Judicial District) e-filing (Odyssey File & Serve / eFileNV): https://efilenv.tylertech.cloud/OfsEfsp/ui/landing
• Washoe County (Second Judicial District) e-filing (eFlex): https://wceflex.washoecourts.com/
• Nevada Supreme Court statewide e-filing portal (eFlex): https://efiling-nv.com/portal/