VIRGINA ACKERMAN AN INDIVIDUAL AND BRIAN ACKERMAN AN INDIVIDUAL v. PRECISION ASSETS NEVADA CORPORATION BETTER PLACE CONSTRUCTION LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND PLATTE RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY SURETY COMPANY (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AND REFERRING COUNSEL TO STATE BAR FOR INVESTIGATION

This is an appeal from district court orders granting summary judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.

The notice of appeal in this matter was filed without the required filing fee. See NRAP 3(e). Accordingly, on May 26, 2023, the clerk of this court issued a notice directing appellants to pay the filing fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 by June 2, 2023, or face dismissal of the appeal. Appellants did not comply or otherwise respond to the notice. On June 9, 2023, the clerk entered an order dismissing this appeal. After appellants moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, this court entered an order on August 2, 2023, vacating the dismissal order and reinstating the appeal.

On August 9, 2023, the clerk of this court issued a notice informing the parties that the appeal could be assigned to this court's settlement program. The notice specifically advised appellants that the docketing statement must be filed by August 30, 2023. The notice cautioned that failure to timely file the docketing statement could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this appeal. See NRAP 14(c). Appellants did not comply. On August 31, 2023, the clerk of this court issued a notice directing appellants to file the docketing statement by September 7, 2023. The notice again cautioned that failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this appeal. NRAP 14(c). Appellants did not comply or otherwise communicate with this court.

On October 3, 2023, this court entered an order imposing a conditional sanction on appellants’ counsel, P. Sterling Kerr and Charles Robert Peterson, for their failure to timely file the docketing statement. The order directed counsel, by October 17, 2023, to pay the sum of $250 to the Supreme Court Law Library and provide this court with proof of such payment. However, the sanction would be automatically vacated if Mr. Kerr and Mr. Peterson filed and served the docketing statement within the same time period. If the docketing statement was not timely filed, the sanction would no longer be conditional and must be paid. This court cautioned that failure to comply with the order or any other filing deadlines could result in the dismissal of this appeal. See NRAP 3(a)(2). Further, because it appeared that Mr. Kerr's and Mr. Peterson's conduct in this appeal may constitute violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct), we cautioned that failure to comply with the order or any other filing deadlines could also result in the referral of counsel to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation pursuant to SCR 104-105.

Appellants submitted a docketing statement for filing on October 17, 2023. However, that filing was rejected by the clerk of this court because the filing consisted only of an error page stating that it is not in the proper format. Appellants untimely filed a corrected docketing statement on October 19, 2023. Although the filing was untimely and lacked the required proof of service on the settlement judge, the conditional sanction was deemed vacated.

On December 7, 2023, this court entered an order reinstating briefing and the deadline for requesting transcripts. See NRAP 16. This court directed appellants to file and serve a transcript request form by December 21, 2023. If no transcript is to be requested, appellants were to file and serve a certificate to that effect within the same time period. See NRAP 9(a). To date, appellants have failed to comply or otherwise communicate with this court.

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. Kerr and Mr. Peterson, as part of their professional obligations of competence and diligence to their clients, to know and comply with all applicable court rules. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. These rules have been implemented to promote cost-effective, timely access to the courts; it is “imperative” that they follow these rules and timely comply with our directives. Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. 645, 650, 261 P.3d 1080, 1084 (2011). Mr. Kerr and Mr. Peterson are “not at liberty to disobey notices, orders, or any other directives issued by this court.” Id. at 652, 261 P.3d at 1085.

Mr. Kerr's and Mr. Peterson's failure to comply with this court's rules, notices, and orders has forced this court to divert its limited resources to ensure their compliance and needlessly delayed the processing of this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. Because it appears that the conduct of Mr. Kerr and Mr. Peterson in this appeal may constitute violations of RPC 1.3 (diligence), 3.2(a) (expediting litigation), and 8.4 (misconduct), this court refers Mr. Kerr and Mr. Peterson 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.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Bell, J.