EILEEN WELLS v. STATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS (2023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to extend time to transmit the record on appeal. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Monica Trujillo, Judge.

When initial review of the docketing statement and documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, this court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. Specifically, no statute or court rule allows an appeal from the aforementioned order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). And although the order states that the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider appellant's petition for judicial review, the order does not dismiss or otherwise finally resolve the petition, and thus did not appear appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1). See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment).

Appellant sought and obtained three extensions of time to file a response. Pending before this court are appellant's motions for fourth and fifth extensions of time. The last-filed motion requests until July 14, 2023, to file a response.¹ Although counsel demonstrates extraordinary and compelling circumstances in support of the fourth motion, NRAP 26(b)(1)(B), counsel does not demonstrate such circumstances in support of the fifth motion. Moreover, counsel has not submitted the response for filing. Accordingly, that motion is denied.

Counsel appears to concede within the fifth motion that the district court has not yet entered an appealable order. And no other statute or court rule appears to allow an appeal from the challenged order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.²

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Parraguirre, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The latter motion was untimely filed.

2.   Appellant may file a new notice of appeal, if aggrieved, once the district court enters a final, appealable judgment.