From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogoff v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Nevada.
Nov 29, 2017
406 P.3d 471 (Nev. 2017)

Opinion

No. 74179

11-29-2017

Marlene ROGOFF, Appellant, v. Martin Ronald JOHNSON, Respondent.

Marlene Rogoff Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd.


Marlene Rogoff

Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order granting a motion to set aside a default judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; David M. Jones, Judge.

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. It appears that the notice of appeal was untimely filed more than thirty days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order. See NRAP 4(a)(1) ; NRAP 26(c). Written notice of the court's order setting aside the default judgment was served on June 7, 2017. Appellant's notice of appeal was therefore due to be filed on or before July 10, 2017, unless appellant filed a timely tolling motion. See NRAP 4(a)(4). Appellant filed motions to amend the challenged order on September 22, 2017, well after the 10 days allowed for filing such a motion. See NRCP 52(b), 59. While a timely-filed motion to amend will toll the time to appeal, an untimely motion to amend does not toll the time to appeal. See NRAP 4(a)(4) ; Morrell v. Edwards, 98 Nev. 91, 93, 640 P.2d 1322, 1324 (1982). Appellant's notice of appeal was not filed in the district court until October 2, 2017. Therefore, appellant's notice of appeal was untimely filed. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Rogoff v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Nevada.
Nov 29, 2017
406 P.3d 471 (Nev. 2017)
Case details for

Rogoff v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:Marlene ROGOFF, Appellant, v. Martin Ronald JOHNSON, Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada.

Date published: Nov 29, 2017

Citations

406 P.3d 471 (Nev. 2017)