Opinion
88043
08-30-2024
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL
Cadish, C.J.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a January 4, 2024, district court order granting in part plaintiffs' fees and an October 3, 2023, district court order on motion for attorney's fees incurred for order to show cause trial. Together, the orders grant, in part, cross-appellants' motion seeking attorney fees under NRS 22.010 based on a contempt finding related to the withdrawal of funds from the receivership estate. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Elizabeth Gonzalez, Sr. Judge.
When this court's initial review of the notices of appeal and docketing statements revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, the parties were directed to show cause why this appeal and cross-appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, the order noted, the district court has not yet entered a final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1), as the receivership proceedings remain pending. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996, P.2d 416, 417 (2000) ("[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."); see MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC VS. Thomas, Docket Nos. 85915/86092/86985/87243/87303/87566/87567/87685 (Order Resolving Motions, Dismissing and Consolidating Appeals, and Reinstating Briefing, Dec. 29, 2023). Thus, it appeared, the attorney fees orders were not appealable as special orders after final judgment, NRAP 3A(b)(8); Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 920, 59 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2002) (a special order entered after a final judgment is one that affects "the rights of some party to the action" growing out of the final judgment), and contempt orders are not independently appealable, Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 571 (2000) (determining that contempt orders are not appealable).
The parties have timely responded to the show cause order, each conceding that, based on NRAP 3A(b)(8) and the law of the case, this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal and cross-appeal. Accordingly, we
ORDER this appeal and cross-appeal DISMISSED.
In light of this order, the motion to consolidate this docket with the writ petition in Docket No. 88444 is denied as moot.
Pickering, J. Bell, J.
Hon. Elizabeth Gonzalez, Senior Judge, Chief Judge, The Second Judicial District Court