Preview:

lacks jurisdiction to reopen the case unless the judgment is "set aside or vacated pursuant to the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure." Here, the July 30 default judgment in appellant's favor constituted the final judgment in the underlying matter, as it resolved all of the claims pending therein.

Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000)
(explaining that a final judgment disposes of all the issues presented in a case, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney fees and costs). Although the district court orally granted respondents' motion to set aside the default judgment, it never entered a written, file-stamped order memorializing that ruling, and thus, the oral ruling on that motion was ineffective. State, Div. Child & Fam. Servs. v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) (concluding that "dispositional orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective"). Under these circumstances, the July 30 default judgment remains the final judgment in the underlying case and the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the subsequent January 14 order of dismissal for want of prosecution.

Greene, 115 Nev. at 396, 990 P.2d at 187. The

January 14, 2011, order is therefore void and we order the district court to vacate that order. Absent a written, file-stamped order memorializing the district court's oral ruling setting aside the default judgment, the July 30,

SUPREME COURT OF
NEVADA

2
II

(0) 1947A

I

2010, default judgment remains the final judgment in the underlying case.' This order represents the final disposition in this appeal. It is so ORDERED. 2

Pickering

Pie/kV.7 tty '

,

C.J.

n / CuA g&'4.1
Hardesty

A

J.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge William James Berry, Sr. Boyack & Beck Eighth District Court Clerk

'As the oral ruling granting the motion to set aside was ineffective, we do not reach the merits of the district court's oral ruling on this issue. Nonetheless, nothing in this order should be construed as affecting the district court's entry of a written, file-stamped order memorializing this ruling. regard to appellant's request for transcripts of various district court proceedings, we conclude that the requested transcripts are not necessary for our resolution of this matter.
2 With

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3

(0) 1947A



Download 57939.pdf

Nevada Law