FAMILY DOCTORS RAMANATHAN PLLC NEVADA PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RAVI RAMANATHAN AN INDIVIDUAL MEENAAKSHI RAMANATHAN AN INDIVIDUAL AND PRACTICE PROFICIENCY LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY v. LIFTFORWARD INC DELAWARE CORPORATION AND LF COLLATERAL SPV IV LLC DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion for partial summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part a countermotion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Maria A. Gall, Judge.

Respondents have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the appeal is not from a final judgment pursuant to NRAP 3A or any other appealable order. Appellants acknowledge that the appeal was filed “in the abundance of caution to protect their appellate rights in the event the district court's order of dismissal of the NRS 645B.900 and/or 645B.910 claim constituted a final judgment within the meaning of [NRAP] 3A(b)(1).”

Here, the notice of appeal indicates that although the district court order granted summary judgment in respondents’ favor on appellants’ NRS Chapter 645B claims, the order also granted appellants’ countermotion for leave to file a second amended complaint alleging NRS Chapter 107 violations. The second amended complaint was thereafter filed and has not yet been resolved by the district court, and therefore there is no final judgment resolving all of the issues presented in the matter below from which an appeal may be brought.¹ NRAP 3A(b)(1); see Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (noting that this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (“[A] final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, respondents’ motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.

It is so ORDERED.

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellants also did not seek NRCP 54(b) certification of the district court's order underlying this appeal.