Opinion
82205-COA
03-03-2022
NICKEL MINE AVENUE TRUST, A NEVADA IRREVOCABLE TRUST; TRAVERTINE LANE TRUST, A NEVADA IRREVOCABLE TRUST; MAHOGANY MEADOWS AVENUE TRUST, A NEVADA IRREVOCABLE TRUST; AND SATICOY BAY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Appellants, v. COPPER CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A NEVADA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
GIBBONS, C.J.
This is an appeal from orders titled judgments and awards of attorney fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Ronald J. Israel, Judge.
Review of the docketing statement, the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g), and the parties' briefs gave rise to questions regarding this court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, on December 3, 2021, this court entered an order directing appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, This court noted that the orders appealed from appeared to be duplicative of previous orders, and as they did not modify any of the rights or obligations of the parties, they were therefore not appealable. See Campos-Garcia v. Johnson, 130 Nev. 610, 612, 331 P.3d 890, 891 (2014) (holding that the final judgment is the first order that adjudicates all rights and liabilities; duplicative or superfluous judgments that do not modify settled legal rights and obligations are not appealable). Accordingly, the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely, as more than 30 days had passed from the notice of entry of the original orders.
Moreover, this court noted that to the extent appellants sought to challenge the underlying judgment, it was unclear whether the order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment, entered on April 3, 2020, with notice of entry filed on April 6, 2020, is a final appealable order. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (providing that a final judgment is one that resolves all of the parties claims and rights in the action, leaving nothing for the court's future consideration except for post-judgment issues such as attorney fees and costs). It appeared that the judgment may not have resolved all claims between all parties and that, in that circumstance, the notice of appeal is actually premature. NRAP 4(a).
Appellants have now responded to the order to show cause, and they concur that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed. They propose that the order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment should be certified as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b). To that end, appellants filed a motion in the district court; however, the district court denied the motion, and now appellants ask this court for a further extension of time to secure the certification on a motion for rehearing.
This court is disinclined to postpone indefinitely the consideration of appeals before it while the parties continue to litigate matters in the district court. Accordingly, this court concludes that appellants have failed to demonstrate this court has jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. Appellants may appeal from a final, appealable judgment.
It is so ORDERED.
Tao, Bulla, Judges
Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge