Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE HAZE CORP., LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND THE HAZE CORP., AN ONTARIO CORPORATION, Appellants, v. SANTE VERITAS HOLDINGS, INC., A BRITISH COLUMBIA CORPORATION; SANTE VERITAS THERAPEUTICS INC., A BRITISH COLUMBIA CORPORATION; TILT HOLDINGS INC., A FOREIGN FOR PROFIT CORPORATION; AND TILT HOLDINGS US, INC., A DOMESTIC CORPORATION, Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss, for lack of personal jurisdiction, an action alleging breach of contract and related claims. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.
When our initial review of the notice of appeal and docketing statement revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, this court ordered appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, the show cause order explained, it appeared that the district court had not yet entered a final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(l) because appellants’ claims against Brand Canna Growth Partners, Inc. remained pending. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996, P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (“[A] final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs.”). Appellants timely filed a response, and respondents timely filed a reply.
After considering the parties’ arguments, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. As appellants recognize, their claims against Brand Canna remain pending, and the district court has not certified its order dismissing respondents from the action as final under NRCP 54(b). Consequently, no final judgment has been entered from which appellants can appeal. Since no final judgment exists and appellants have not otherwise demonstrated that the dismissal order is independently appealable, we lack jurisdiction and
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
Stiglich, J.
Pickering, J.
Parraguirre, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 87282
Decided: March 18, 2024
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)