BONNIE NYBERG QUAINTANCE AN INDIVIDUAL IN HER OWN BEHALF BONNIE NYBERG QUAINTANCE AS THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARY ALDEN QUAINTANCE AND HATFIELD ASSOCIATES LTD v. THE PALMER LAW FIRM PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION AND RICHARD HERMAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from an order granting a special motion to dismiss pursuant to NRS 41.660. This court previously entered an order to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Specifically, this court noted that it does not appear that the district court has entered a final written judgment adjudicating all the rights and liabilities of all the parties, and no statute or court rule provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a special motion to dismiss. See NRAP 3A(b) (identifying appealable determinations); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment); Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (explaining that this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). This court cautioned that failure to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction may result in dismissal of this appeal.

Appellant Bonnie Nyberg Quaintance failed to respond to the order to show cause. Appellant Hatfield and Associates, Ltd., has filed a response stating that it “defers the issue of jurisdiction” to this court and that it intends to bring a writ of mandamus or prohibition. Without expressing any opinion as to the propriety of the contemplated writ petition, this court concludes that appellants have failed to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal.¹ See Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001) (“[T]he burden rests squarely upon the shoulders of a party seeking to invoke our jurisdiction to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court does in fact have jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Bell, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Further, to the extent appellant Hatfield & Associates, Ltd., asks that “a stay be ordered pending the filing of [its contemplated writ petition],” the request is denied.