DAILYPAY INC DELAWARE CORPORATION NEVADANS FOR FINANCIAL CHOICE NEVADA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE CHRISTINA BAUER AN INDIVIDUAL ACTIVEHOURS INC DELAWARE CORPORATION STACY PRESS AN INDIVIDUAL PREFERRED CAPITAL FUNDING NEVADA LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND ALLIANCE FOR RESPONSIBLE CONSUMER LEGAL FUNDING AN ILLINOIS NONPROFIT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO AGUILAR IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NEVADA SECRETARY OF STATE KATE FELDMAN AN INDIVIDUAL AND STOP PREDATORY LENDING NV NEVADA NONPROFIT CORP (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AS MOOT

This is an appeal from a district court order denying declaratory and injunctive relief in a ballot initiative matter. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; William A. Maddox, Judge.

During the pendency of this appeal, the deadline for respondents Kate Feldman and Stop Predatory Lending NV (collectively, Feldman) to submit signatures in support of their initiative petition expired. See NRS 295.056(2) (providing that an initiative petition proponent must submit signatures “not later than the 15th day following the general election”). Thereafter, multiple appellants filed suggestions of mootness with this court, and we directed Feldman to demonstrate why this appeal should not be dismissed as moot.

Feldman conceded that they did not timely submit documents with sufficient signatures to the counties or respondent Secretary of State. As it appears that insufficient signatures were gathered and the initiative petition at issue therefore will not proceed in the initiative process, we conclude that this appeal is moot. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602-03, 245 P.3d 572, 574-75 (2010) (dismissing an appeal in a ballot initiative matter as moot because the initiative proponents did not submit sufficient signatures by the deadline, preventing this court from granting effective relief from the challenged order). We further conclude that Feldman failed to demonstrate than an exception to the mootness doctrine exists. See id. at 602, 245 P.3d at 574 (recognizing the “capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review” exception to the mootness doctrine). While Feldman urges there is a likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future, “addressing a potential future initiative at this point would be speculative and lead to an improper advisory opinion.” Id. at 603, 245 P.3d at 575. Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Pickering, J.

Herndon, J.

Lee, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.