Opinion
No. 87164
12-22-2023
Daniel David DYDZAK, Appellant, v. Tani CANTIL-SAKAUYE; Jorge Navarrete; William Dato; Thomas Layton aka Tom Layton; Charles Schwab; Johnnie B. Rawlinson; Barry G. Silverman; William A. Fletcher; 1st Century Bank: 1st Century Bacshares, Inc.; Maxine M. Chesney; A. Wallace Tashima; Ferdinand Francis Fernandez; Kim McClane Wardlaw; William C. Canby; Ronald M. Gould; Richard C. Tallman; Peter Lind Shaw; Edward Ephraim Schiffer; Sidney R. Thomas; Molly C. Dwyer; George H. King; Donald F. Miles ; Ronald M. George; Eric M. George: and Alan I. Rothenberg, Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. It appears that the challenged order is not a final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1). "[A] final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs." Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000). As this court noted in its order dismissing appellant's previous appeal, the challenged order grants a motion to dismiss filed by two defendants and does not appear to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. See Dydzak v. Cantil-Sakauye , No. 84868, 2022 WL 4002920 (Order Dismissing Appeal, Sep. 1, 2022).
Further, to the extent the district court's June 29, 2022, order to statistically close the case could be construed as a final judgment, the notice of appeal, filed on August 21, 2023, is untimely. See NRAP 4(a)(1) ; NRCP 6 ; see also Brown v. MHC Stagecoach , 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (explaining that although no statute or court rule directly authorizes an appeal from an order statistically closing a case, if the order constitutes a final judgment, then it is substantively appealable). This court lacks jurisdiction over an untimely appeal. Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft , 103 Nev. 329, 741 P.2d 432 (1987). Accordingly, this court
Given this order, appellant's untimely motion for an extension to file and serve the docketing statement is denied as moot.