ANGELA UNDERWOOD INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF TYLER UNDERWOOD v. BARR COMPANY INC SAFETY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC TOWER ENERGY GROUP THE LASTER CORPORATION SUNNYSIDE CORPORATION RM MARKETS INC RICHARD HALEY ELEVEN INC AMREP INC AUTOZONE STORES INC CRC INDUSTRIES INC CITGO PETROLEUM CORP AND CALUMET BRANDED PRODUCTS LLC (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from several district court orders granting summary judgment in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Erika L. Mendoza, Judge.

Respondent Calumet Branded Products (Calumet) has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Calumet asserts that claims remain pending in the district court such that no final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1) has been entered, and none of the challenged orders are certified as final under NRCP 54(b). All respondents except RM Markets, Inc. and Autozone Stores, Inc. have filed joinders to the motion.¹

Review of the documents before this court does not indicate that a final judgment has been entered. See 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.”). Appellant's docketing statement does not contain a complete response to item 24, which requires a description of each separate claim and the date of formal disposition of each claim. Although appellant asserts in response to item 22 that this court has jurisdiction under NRAP 3A(b)(1), appellant also represents in response to item 19 that several motions relating to the merits of claims remain pending in the district court. And appellant has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the motion is granted, 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.”), and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It does not appear that Safety-Kleen, Inc. was a party to the underlying proceedings. Accordingly, the clerk shall modify the caption consistent with the caption on this order to remove Safety-Kleen, Inc. as a respondent.