Opinion
86689
01-09-2024
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY; ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. BOWPN1900216; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. BOWPN1900217; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLCJYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. BOWPN1900376; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLCJYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. BOWPN1900381; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. BOWPN1900411; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. 19CVSSPNP301531; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. B62030BAA; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. PD-10319-05; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. BOWPN1900218; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO.[bNPD19AA507A; CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; GREAT LAKES INSURANCE SE; AND TOKIO MARINE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY Appellants. v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC, Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from an order denying appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint for forum non conveniens. Eighth Judicial District Courn, Clark County; Joanna Kishner, Judge.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to dismiss. See NRAP 3A(b) (designating orders and judgments from which an appeal may be taken); see also First interstate Bank v. H.C.T.. Inc., 108 Nev. 242, 250, 828 P.2d 405, 410 (1992). Appellants Zurich American Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company have responded and argue that this court should find the challenged order appealable as “[a]n order changing or refusing to change the place of trial" as permitted by NRAP 3A(b)(6). Appellants argue that this court's decision in Pepper v. C.R. England, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 11, 528 P.3d 587, 589 (2023), is like this case because in that case, as here, the defendants sought to dismiss the Nevada action in favor of litigating the parties' dispute in a different state, and propose that this court analyzed the issues under NRS 13.050, which includes motions to "change the place of the proceeding . . . [w]hen the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change." Respondent has filed a reply.
The remaining appellants subsequently filed a joinder in the opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal.
Appellants' reliance on Pepper is misplaced. In that case, this court analyzed an order granting a motion to dismiss, which is a final judgment under NRAP 3A and reference to NRS 13.050 was in the context of discussing the requirement for an affidavit. Appellants here do not describe a motion to change venue under NRS 13.050, which contemplates moving the place of trial from one county to another county in Nevada; appellants filed a motion to dismiss seeking to terminate the Nevada action, in order for the parties to litigate the case in Virginia, which was denied. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted. This court lacks jurisdiction over the challenged order and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
Stiglich J., Pickering J., Parraguirre J.
Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge
Kristine M. Kuzemka, Settlement Judge.