IN RE: The KENT AND JANE WHIPPLE TRUST (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting the order is not substantively appealable. Appellants counter that the order is appealable pursuant to NRS 38.247(1)(d) because it modifies and corrects the arbitration award. Respondent has replied.

The challenged order does not purport to modify or correct the arbitration award. Moreover, even if the order could be construed as implicitly modifying or correcting the award, this court still lacks jurisdiction.

An order confirming or declining to confirm an arbitration award is appealable. NRS 38.247(1)(c). An order vacating an arbitration award without directing rehearing is also appealable. NRS 38,247(1)(e). However, an order that both denies a motion to confirm an arbitration award and vacates the award while directing a rehearing is not appealable. Karcher Firestopping v. Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc., 125 Nev. 111, 117, 204 P.3d 1262, 1266 (2009). This is because allowing appellate review from such an order would render NRS 38.247(1)(e)’s “without directing a rehearing” language superfluous. Id. at 117, 204 P.3d at 1265. Further, the statutory scheme is designed to allow appeals from arbitration-related orders that “bring an element of finality to the arbitration process.” Id. at 117, 204 P.3d at 1266. An order that remands for supplemental proceedings does not conclude the arbitration process and is not identified under NRS 38.247 as sufficiently final to be appropriate for appellate review. Id. This same reasoning applies equally to an order that vacates an arbitration award, directs rehearing, and modifies or corrects an award. Accordingly, we grant the motion and

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.