Opinion
No. 66955 No. 66961
12-22-2014
RUSSELL, Appellant, v. CHRISTINE PAPPAS, Respondent. RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. CHRISTINE PAPPAS, Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND DENYING WRIT PETITION
This appeal and writ petition both purport to challenge a district court order entered on November 7, 2014, that scheduled a status conference for November 21, 2014, and that required the parties to attend the conference in person. For the same reason that this court dismissed Russell's previous appeal of this order, see Docket No. 66848 (Order Dismissing Appeal, November 14, 2014), we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal in Docket No. 66955 because no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from the challenged order. See NRAP 3A(b) (listing orders and judgments from which an appeal may be taken); see also Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984). We therefore dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 66955.
As for the writ petition in Docket No. 66961 challenging the same order, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). In particular, and although Russell's writ petition in Docket No. 66961 does not articulate a basis for relief, we are not persuaded by his argument in Docket No. 66848 that his constitutional rights were violated by being required to attend the status conference in person. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition in Docket No. 66961.
Russell's writ petition in Docket No. 66961 also appears to take issue with the district court's decision to not strike a document filed by the defendant. A review of the November 7, 2014, order, however, reveals no discussion or ruling on such an issue. Accordingly, we decline to further consider that issue. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring the petitioner to provide this court with the documentation necessary to understand the matters set forth in the writ petition).
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, J.
Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge
Russell
Demetras & O'Neill
Washoe District Court Clerk