Opinion
No. 67919
09-28-2015
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA; AND CLARK COUNTY, Appellants, v. ZEXIANG WANG, AN INDIVIDUAL; GERBER HERNAN AYALA RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GERBER HERNAN AYALA TOMASINO, JR.; ZAKIYA CORNER, INDIVIDUALLY; AND CHADWICK COOLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF HYONCHA COOLE, A/K/A HYON CHA COOLEY, A/K/A HYON C. COOLEY, F/K/A HYON CHA KIM; NICHELLE GARNER INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JOHNNI GARNER; MORENA GUADALUPE TOMASINO DE HERNANDEZ INDIVIDUALLY; AND ASHLEY GANIER AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GERBER HERNAN AYALA DIAZ, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 denying appellants' motions to dismiss. Appellants have filed a motion to confirm jurisdiction, arguing that this case presents a question of first impression as to whether a district court order denying governmental immunity is immediately appealable. The motion is opposed. Having considered the motion and the arguments of counsel, and cause appearing, we deny the motion to confirm jurisdiction.
This court has declined to adopt the collateral order doctrine:
Interlocutory appeals cause delay, expense and disruption. Adopting the collateral order doctrine would require this court to extensively screen appeals from interlocutory orders to determine whether this court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction lines would become unfocused and uncertain. This in turn could result in a proliferation of premature appeals. These burdens would outweigh any possible benefits that could result from adoption of the collateral order doctrine.State Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspun, 109 Nev. 1022, 1025, 862 P.2d 423, 425 (1993) (internal citations omitted). Instead, this court addresses challenges to a district court's preliminary rejection of a claim of governmental immunity through its powers to grant extraordinary relief. See, e.g., State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 118 Nev. 609, 617, 55 P.3d 420, 425 (2002).
This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). As no statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss, Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990), we
We deny as moot the motion to dismiss and associated notice of interested party filed September 11, 2015, and September 14, 2015. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Mainor Wirth
G. Dallas Horton & Associates
Henness & Haight
Edward M. Bernstein & Associates/Las Vegas
Callister & Associates
Golightly & Vannah, PLLC
Eighth District Court Clerk