Opinion
No. 55901.
01-14-2011
In re KITEC FITTING LITIGATION. Majestic Plumbing, Inc.; and Sharp Plumbing, Inc., Appellants, v. Tracie L. Quinterro; Eric W. Quinterro; Stephen Inferrera; Sheila Inferrera; Anna Navarro ; Susan Sheldon; Robert Dostler; Beverly Miller; Emma Norton ; David Ober ; Jennifer Ober; David Pursjano; Laurel Brady; Pamela T. Smith; Kari Brady ; Paul Brady ; Roderick Saup; Rhonda Saup; Laura Ishum; Nancy Drapeau; Yolanda Flores; Rebekah Ogle; Rick Guzman ; Paul Messingschlager; Barry Sweet ; Evan Levy ; Mary Levy; Leslie Gunnels; John Berbirian; Doug Ellington; Melanie Littlefield; Harvey Smith; Mike House; Vincent Marino; Larry Maier; Dan Riordan ; Linda McIntyre, individually and as Class Representatives; Ipex USA LLC; and Ipex, Inc., Respondents.
Luh & Associates Sterling Law, LLC Thagard, Reiss & Brown, LLP Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
Luh & Associates
Sterling Law, LLC
Thagard, Reiss & Brown, LLP
Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP
Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court judgment, certified as final under NRCP 54(b), adjudicating a subclass of plaintiffs' claims against appellant Majestic Plumbing, Inc., in a class action filed under NRS Chapter 40, awarding those plaintiffs damages and attorney fees and costs, and offsetting the award based on a settlement contribution. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge.
Presently before this court is appellants' motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal, based on a settlement reached in the underlying matter on December 21, 2010. Appellants point out that the terms of the settlement include their agreement to dismiss the appeal and that the parties will bear their own appellate fees and costs, and they include a stipulation that appellants may seek to recall the remittitur and reinstate the appeal in the unlikely event that the district court disapproves the settlement. Respondents have joined in the motion and ask this court to dismiss the appeal immediately, based on the settlement's terms.
Having considered the motion and joinder thereto, we grant it. Accordingly, we
In light of this order, respondents' motion for resolution of pending matters and to expedite this appeal is denied as moot.