JANE DOE v. ELKO ENTERTAINMENT PROPERTIES LLC DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LOUIS GOLDBERG AN INDIVIDUAL PETER TANG AN INDIVIDUAL AND ANNA BROWN AN INDIVIDUAL (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend and denying a motion to proceed under a pseudonym. Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; Mason E. Simons, Judge.

We previously entered an order identifying a potential jurisdictional defect. We noted that the district court's order does not appear to be a final order resolving the matter before the district court as the district court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to amend. Bergenfield v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, 131 Nev. 683, 685, 354 P.3d 1282. 1284 (2015) (“[A] district court order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not final and appealable.”). We further indicated that no statute or court rule provides for the appealability of an interlocutory order denying a motion to proceed under a pseudonym. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (explaining that this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”).

Appellant filed a response, analogizing the instant issue involving filing under a pseudonym to this court's decision in Saticoy Bay, LLC Series 9720 Hitching Rail v. Peccole Ranch Community Assn., 137 Nev. 516, 495 P.3d 492 (2021). In that case this court determined that an order dismissing a complaint for failure to engage in mediation before filing the complaint, pursuant to NRS 38.130, constituted a final order. In so doing, this court compared dismissal for failure to follow NRS 38.130’s procedural requirement to cases that are dismissed based upon failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Saticoy Bay, 137 Nev. at 518-19, 495 P.3d at 496. Here, that reasoning simply does not apply. See Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001) (“[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.”). Accordingly, as jurisdiction is lacking, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.¹

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This court takes no position on the merits of appellant's claim that she is entitled to use a pseudonym to protect her from harm.Given this dismissal, appellant's motion to seal the Rule 26.1 disclosure statement is denied as moot. The clerk shall return the disclosure statement received on February 12, 2025, unfiled.