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.
JOHN LUCKETT, Appellant, v. DOWNTOWN COLLISION, LLC; CESAR O'ACOSTA, SR.; CESAR O'ACOSTA, JR.; JOSE GUINERMO; JOSE G. FLORES AVARENGA; WALKER TOWING, INC.; E&E A/K/A SOUTH STRIP TOWING; QUALITY TOWING, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; PHENOMENAL TOWING, LLC; FRIENDLY FORD, INC.; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is a pro se appeal of an order enforcing John Luckett's vexatious litigant status and an order setting aside entry of default, denying Ceasr O. Acosta's (erroneously identified as Cesar O'Acosta, Sr. and Cesar Acosta, Jr.) motion for attorney fees, and denying a post-judgment motion for sanctions. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge.
Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears that the orders designated in the notice of appeal are not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). 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, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from a post-judgment order enforcing vexatious litigant status, a post-judgment order setting aside entry of default, or an order denying a post-judgment motion for sanctions. See Peck v. Crouser, 129 Nev. 120, 124, 295 P.3d 586, 588 (2013) (holding vexatious litigant orders are not independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)); Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 913-14, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002) (defining appealable special orders after final judgment as orders affecting the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered). Further, appellant lacks standing to challenge the portion of the order denying Ceasr O. Acosta's motion for attorney fees. See NRAP 3A(a). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we
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. 88304
Decided: March 28, 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)