ROYAL ESSEX LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ROYAL UNION PROPERTIES LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VINCENT HESSER AN INDIVIDUAL AND DAVID WEEKS AN INDIVIDUAL v. MARTHA JANE HOLMAN IN HER CAPACITY AS THE TRUSTEE OF THE GFH IRREVOCABLE TRUST AND GEORGE HOLMAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE TRUSTEE OF THE MJH IRREVOCABLE TRUST (2024)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on the court's order to show cause. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge. Respondents have filed a renewed motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants oppose the motion, and respondents have filed a reply.

This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). “[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.” Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001). Appellants initially contended that the district court's order was appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(3) because it constituted both mandatory and prohibitory injunctive relief. However. NRAP 3A(b)(3) is not applicable because an injunction was neither sought nor awarded, a point which appellants appear to concede in their opposition to the renewed motion to dismiss appeal. Instead, appellants argue, without support, that this court has jurisdiction because the challenged order substantively amended the district court's prior partial summary judgment order, which was certified as final under NRCP 54(b) and appealed in Docket No. 85359. However, even if that was the case, this court still lacks jurisdiction because the challenged order is not a final judgment, and appellants point to no other statute or court rules that would establish jurisdiction. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.

Additionally, in their opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, appellants request the consolidation of this appeal with the closed appeal in Docket No. 85359 and reconsideration of the court's prior decision in that appeal. These requests are denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Stiglich, J.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.