From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Medallic Art Ltd. v. Hoff

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 8, 2015
No. 67101 (Nev. Dec. 8, 2015)

Opinion

No. 67101

12-08-2015

MEDALLIC ART LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A REVOKED NEVADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; MEDALLIC ART CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION; MEDALLIC ART COMPANY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND ROSS HANSEN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A NORTHWEST TERRITORIAL MINT, LLC, MEDALLIC ART LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MEDALLIC ART CORPORATION AND MEDALLIC ART COMPANY, LLC, Appellants, v. ROBERT HOFF; AND CONNIE HOFF, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Respondents.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order in a breach of contract action. Third Judicial District Court, Lyon County; Leon Aberasturi, Judge.

When our review of the docketing statement and documents submitted to this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, we ordered appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it appeared that the order appealed from was not a final appealable order because it did not award an amount of attorney fees, but instead set a future hearing date for the purpose of determining the amount of fees. Appellants have filed a response to the order to show cause and respondents have filed a reply.

In response, appellants argue that the order appealed from was the final judgment because it resolved respondents' cause of action for attorney fees and determined that they were the prevailing party entitled to such fees. We disagree. Because the order appealed from did not establish an amount of fees, but instead set a future hearing date to determine an appropriate amount of fees, the order is not appealable. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we

We note that appellants have filed an appeal from the district court's order awarding a specific amount of fees and costs, docketed in this court as Docket No. 68776. Appellants are free to raise issues regarding respondents' entitlement to fees in the context of that appeal.

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Appellants' motion to consolidate this appeal with Docket No. 68776 is denied as moot. The conditional sanction imposed against appellants' counsel is hereby vacated. --------

/s/_________, J.

Parraguirre /s/_________, J.
Douglas /s/_________, J.
Cherry cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge

Laurie A. Yott, Settlement Judge

Leverty & Associates Law, Chtd.

Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd.

Third District Court Clerk

Supreme Court Law Librarian


Summaries of

Medallic Art Ltd. v. Hoff

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 8, 2015
No. 67101 (Nev. Dec. 8, 2015)
Case details for

Medallic Art Ltd. v. Hoff

Case Details

Full title:MEDALLIC ART LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A REVOKED NEVADA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Dec 8, 2015

Citations

No. 67101 (Nev. Dec. 8, 2015)