BEST HOME CARE AT WYOMING DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RUTH RAMIREZ BEST HOME CARE AT WYOMING AND RF RAMIREZ LLC v. LORENZO WHELESS INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JERRY WHELESS (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND REFERRING COUNSEL TO STATE BAR FOR INVESTIGATION

This is an appeal from a district court judgment on jury verdict and from an order granting a motion for attorney fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge.

Appellants filed their docketing statement on June 25, 2025. The cover of the docketing statement contains a warning that failure to complete the form in its entirety or attach all required documents could result in the imposition of sanctions. Above counsel's signature at the end of the document is a verification in which counsel declared, under penalty of perjury, that he had read the docketing statement, it was complete to the best of his knowledge, and all required documents were attached. Nevertheless, the docketing statement was deficient.

On March 13, 2026, this court entered an order explaining that appellants’ docketing statement did not provide an appropriate response to item 22(b) or a complete response to item 24. Appellants also failed to attach copies of the orders challenged on appeal, a July 11, 2018, notice of dismissal, and a March 12, 2025, order granting a motion for partial summary judgment. This court ordered appellants to file an amended docketing statement containing complete responses to all items and with copies of all required documents attached. This court expressly cautioned that failure to timely comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this appeal. NRAP 14(c).

Appellants filed an amended docketing statement on March 27, 2026. The cover of that document again contains the warning that failure to complete the form in its entirety or attach all required documents could result in the imposition of sanctions. And counsel signed his name under the same declaration, under penalty of perjury, that he read the docketing statement, it was complete to the best of his knowledge, and all required documents were attached. Nevertheless, the amended docketing statement was deficient. Appellants still did not provide a complete response to item 24. Specifically, item 24 directs appellants to describe each party's claims and the date of formal disposition of each claim. Appellants’ amended docketing statement simply listed claims without identifying which claims were brought by which parties and failed to provide dates of formal disposition of any claims. Further, appellants asserted in response to item 23 that the claim asserted by plaintiff Jerry Wheless, Jr. was dismissed pursuant to NRCP 50. However, item 24 did not provide a date of disposition of any claim brought by Wheless, Jr., nor was a copy of any order resolving his claim attached to the amended docketing statement.

On May 11, 2026, this court entered an order describing the above deficiencies and explaining that the failure of appellants’ counsel, Lawrence J. Semenza, to provide complete responses to all items in the docketing statement and attach copies of all required documents has wasted the limited judicial resources of this court and unnecessarily delayed the processing of this appeal. Mr. Semenza was admonished for his failure to comply with this court's rules and order and directed to file and serve a second amended docketing statement that contained complete responses to all items and had copies of all required documents attached. The order cautioned that failure to comply could result in the imposition of additional sanctions, including the dismissal of this appeal. NRAP 14(c).

Appellants filed a second amended docketing statement on May 18, 2026. This docketing statement too contained a warning that failure to complete the form in its entirety or attach all required documents could result in the imposition of sanctions. Once again, counsel signed his name to the verification declaring, under penalty of perjury, that he had read the docketing statement, it was complete to the best of his knowledge, and all required documents were attached. However, the second amended docketing statement is deficient. Appellants’ response to item 24 is identical to the deficient response provided in the amended docketing statement and pointed out in the May 11 order. Although appellants have now attached a copy of a minute order granting an “oral Rule 50 Motion as to Jerry Wheless Jr.,” no written order formally resolving the claim asserted by Wheless, Jr. is provided as required by item 28, and the minute order is not effective to formally resolve Wheless, Jr's claims. See Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) (“[D]ispositional court 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.”).

This court has repeatedly stated that all appeals are expected to be “pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence.” Cuzdey v. State, 103 Nev. 575, 578, 747 P.2d 233, 235 (1987); accord Polk v. State, 126 Nev. 180, 184, 233 P.3d 357, 359 (2010); Barry v. Lindner, 119 Nev. 661, 671, 81 P.3d 537, 543 (2003); State, Nev. Emp't Sec. Dept. v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121, 123, 676 P.2d 1318, 1319 (1984). It is incumbent upon Mr. Semenza, as part of his professional obligations of competence and diligence to his clients, to comply with all court rules and orders. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. Mr. Semenza is “not at liberty to disobey notices, orders, or any other directives issued by this court.” Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. 645, 652, 261 P.3d 1080, 1085 (2011). Failure to comply impedes this court's ability to provide cost-effective, timely access to the courts. Id. at 652, 261 P.3d at 1084. Moreover, “[w]hen attorneys do not take seriously their obligations under NRAP 14 to properly and conscientiously complete the docketing statement, they waste the valuable judicial resources of this court, making the imposition of sanctions appropriate.” KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc. v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 344, 810 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1991). We conclude Mr. Semenza's repeated failure to comply with this court's rules and orders warrants the imposition of additional sanctions. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Because it appears that his conduct in this appeal may constitute violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct), this court refers Mr. Semenza to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105. Bar counsel shall, within 90 days of the date of this order, inform this court of the status or results of the investigation and any disciplinary proceedings in this matter.

It is so ORDERED.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.