MEEKS II v. CITY OF RENO (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The order granting Schieve and Nance's motion to dismiss did not resolve all outstanding issues raised below. Specifically, the order did not address Meeks’ contentions concerning service of the summons and complaint upon the City of Reno and other potential parties. The order was thus not a final order. See Rennets v. Rennets, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011) (providing that a final order “disposes of the issues presented” leaving “nothing for the future consideration of the court” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sandstrom v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. 657, 659, 119 P.3d 1250, 1252 (2005) (“[A] final order [is] one that disposes of all issues and leaves nothing for future consideration.”). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, see NRAP 3A(b)(1) (providing for an appeal from “[a] final judgment entered in an action or proceeding commenced in the court in which the judgment is rendered”), and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.