ONE WORLD VENTURES INC v. CONDUIT LLC LLC (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

On July 8, 2024, counsel for appellant, Christopher Klink, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in this appeal that was not accompanied by the required proof of service. See NRAP 25(d). On July 9, 2024, the clerk of this court issued a notice directing Mr. Klink to provide proof of service within 7 days. Mr. Klink failed to comply. On August 5, 2024, this court issued an order directing Mr. Klink to provide proof of service within 7 days and stating that failure to comply would result in no action being taken on the notice of voluntary dismissal. Again, Mr. Klink failed to comply. Accordingly, on August 19, 2024, this court issued an order taking no action on the notice of voluntary dismissal and directing Mr. Klink to file the transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request, and the opening brief and appendix within 14 days. The order cautioned Mr. Klink that failure to comply could result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this appeal. Mr. Klink did not comply or otherwise communicate with this court. Therefore, on September 27, 2024, this court entered an order directing Mr. Klink to show cause, within 7 days, why this appeal should not be dismissed and Mr. Klink referred to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation. To date, Mr. Klink has failed to respond or otherwise communicate with this court. In addition, the transcript request form or certificate of no transcript request and the opening brief and appendix are now overdue.

This court has repeatedly stated that all appeals are expected to be “pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence.” Cuzdey v. State, 103 Nev. 575, 578, 747 P.2d 233, 235 (1987); accord Polk v. State, 126 Nev. 180, 184, 233 P.3d 357, 359 (2010); Barry v. Lindner, 119 Nev. 661, 671, 81 P.3d 537, 543 (2003); State, Nev. Emp't Sec. Dept. v. Weber, 100 Nev. 121, 123, 676 P.2d 1318, 1319 (1984). It is incumbent upon Mr. Klink, as part of his professional obligations of competence and diligence to his clients, to know and comply with all applicable court rules. See RPC 1.1; RPC 1.3. These rules have been implemented to promote cost-effective, timely access to the courts; it is “imperative” that he follow these rules and timely comply with our directives. Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. 645, 650, 261 P.3d 1080, 1084 (2011). Mr. Klink is “not at liberty to disobey notices, orders, or any other directives issued by this court.” Id. at 652, 261 P.3d at 1085.

Mr. Klink is admonished for his failure to comply with this court's rules, notice, and orders. This failure has forced this court to divert its limited resources to ensure his compliance and needlessly delayed the processing of this appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. We decline to refer Mr. Klink to the State Bar at this time.

It is so ORDERED.