from a district court order dismissing a petition for
judicial review in an unemployment compensation matter.
Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Rob Bare,
Bongiovi Law Firm, LLC, and Gina J. Bongiovi, Las Vegas;
Fabyanske. Westra, Hart & Thomson, P.A., and Thomas J.
Vollbrecht, Minneapolis. Minnesota, for Appellant.
Curtis Jordan, Senior Legal Counsel State of Nevada
Employment Security Division, Carson City, for Respondents.
HARDESTY, ST1GLICH and SILVER, JJ.
Chapter 233B provides a mechanism for a party aggrieved by a
final administrative decision to petition a district court
for judicial review. A party seeking judicial review of an
administrative decision must strictly comply with that
chapter's jurisdictional requirements. In this case,
appellant timely filed a petition for judicial review of an
administrative decision. Pursuant to NRS 233B. 130(5),
appellant then had to serve the petition within 45 days.
Appellant neglected to do so, leading the district court to
dismiss the petition. This appeal presents an issue of first
impression: whether the untimely service of a timely filed
petition for judicial review is a jurisdictional defect
mandating dismissal. We hold that the 45-day service
requirement in NRS 233B. 130(5) is not a jurisdictional
requirement because the statute affords the district court
discretion to extend the time frame upon a showing of good
cause. Here, however, because appellant did not demonstrate
good cause for the late service, we affirm the district
court's order dismissing the petition.
2006, Michael DeBoard filed a claim for unemployment
insurance benefits with respondent State of Nevada.
Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation,
Employment Security Division (ESD) and named appellant Spar
Business Services, Inc. (Spar) as his employer,
This claim sparked a broader ESD investigation as to whether
DeBoard and other similarly situated individuals who provided
merchandising services to Spar were independent contractors
or employees of Spar subject to assessment under Nevada law.
Following a series of administrative appeals brought by Spar,
the ESD Administrator entered a determination that Spar was
required to report all individuals as employees and pay
contributions to the ESD. Spar timely appealed, and the ESD
Board of Review affirmed this determination in April 2017.
The ESD decision became final on May 5, 2017.
timely filed its petition for review in district court on May
15, 2017. Pursuant to NRS 233B.130(5), Spar then had 45 days
to serve the petition for review on the ESD. But Spar did not
serve the petition on the ESD until July 14, 2017-15 days
after the 45-day deadline under NRS 233B. 130(5) had
passed. The ESD moved to dismiss Spar's
petition based upon Spar's failure to timely serve the
petition pursuant to NRS 233B. 130(5), which the ESD
contended deprived the district court of subject matter
jurisdiction. The district court granted the ESD's motion
to dismiss Spar's petition, finding that Spar did not
effect service within the requisite 45-day deadline and did
not show good cause to extend the service deadline pursuant
to NRS 233B. 130(5).
claims the district court erred in dismissing its petition
for judicial review because NRS 233B.130(5)'s 45-day
service period is not jurisdictional and because Spar
established good cause for an extension. Whether NRS
233B.130(5)'s service requirement is jurisdictional
implicates an issue of statutory construction, which we
review de novo. Washoe Cty. v. Otto, 128 Nev. 424,
431, 282 P.3d 719, 724 (2012) (applying de novo review when
construing a statute and when determining subject matter
jurisdiction). Conversely, we review a district court's
good cause determination for an abuse of discretion. See
Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers
Local 16 v. Labor Comm'r, 134 Nev. 1, 5, 408 P.3d
156, 160 (2018).
within 45 days of a timely filed petition is not a
obtain review of an ESD decision, a petitioner must proceed
under NRS Chapter 612, which governs claims for unemployment
benefits. Cf. NRS 612.010. Though special provisions
of NRS Chapter 612 prevail where applicable, NRS
233B.039(3)(a), Nevada's Administrative Procedures Act
(NAPA), codified as NRS Chapter 233B, sets forth the
procedural requirements for judicial review of administrative
agency actions generally, NRS 233B.020(1). NRS Chapter 612
requires service of a petition for judicial review contesting
an award subject to its provisions, but is silent regarding
the timing of service. NRS 612.530(2). Accordingly, we look
to the relevant procedures set forth in NRS Chapter 233B.
to NRS 233B. 130(1), an aggrieved party may petition a
district court for judicial review of a final administrative
decision-so long as the decision is challengeable under and
challenged according to NAPA, Otto, 128 Nev. at 431,
282 P.3d at 724-25. A party petitioning for judicial review
of an administrative decision must strictly comply with the
NAPA's jurisdictional requirements. Kame v. Emp't
Sec. Dep't,105 Nev. 22. 25, 769 P.2d 66, 68 (1989).
NRS 233B.130(2) mandates who must be named as respondents to
a petition for judicial review, where the petition must be
filed, who must be served with the petition, and the time for
filing the petition in the district court. Because NRS
233B.130(2) is silent on the court's authority to excuse
noncompliance with those requirements, we have determined
that the statute's plain language requires strict
compliance and have held the requirements in NRS 233B. 130(2)
to be jurisdictional. Heat & Frost, 134 Nev. at
4-5, 408 P.3d at 159-60. Conversely, NRS 233B. 130(5)
expressly grants the district court authority to consider
whether there is good cause to extend the time to serve the
petition. Specifically, NRS 233B. 130(5) provides that
"the petition for judicial review ., . must he served
upon the agency and every party within 45 days after the
filing of the petition, unless, upon a showing of good
cause, the district court extends the time for such
service." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, NRS 233B.
130(5) authorizes a district court to use its discretion to
determine whether there was good cause for any delay in