Preview:

Appellants have filed a "Motion for Determination of Final Order," recognizing a potential jurisdictional defect and asking this court to clarify whether the order designated in their notice of appeal is substantively appealable. Respondents have filed a response.
Having considered the motion and the response, we conclude that the order awarding attorney fees is not substantively appealable because no final judgment has been entered in the district court action and the order is not appealable under any statute or court rule. See NRAP 3A(b)(1) (identifying orders and judgments that are substantively appealable); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (explaining that a final judgment is one that disposes of all issues presented in the case, leaving nothing for the future consideration of the district court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney fees and costs). Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, see Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984) (providing that this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule), we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'
'In light of this order, we deny as moot appellants' February 15, 2013, motion to extend certain deadlines.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

2
(0) 1947A
cc:.Ninth Judicial District Court Dept. 1 Dyer, Lawrence, Penrose, Flaherty, Donaldson & Prunty Matuska Law Offices, Ltd. Thomas J. Hall Attorney General/Carson City Douglas County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

3
(0) I947A

Download 62620.pdf

Nevada Law