RICHARD BROWN v. UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a November 13, 2024, district court order granting respondents motion to dismiss appellant's counterclaim with prejudice. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Barry L. Breslow, Judge.

Upon initial review, this court issued an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it did not appear that the challenged order was appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because it appeared that respondent's claims remain pending below. Appellant has filed a response to the order to show cause and respondent has filed a reply.¹

In his response, appellant asserts that the November 13 district court order “effectively dismissed the Answer to the Complaint and the Affirmative Defenses” and, further, that this constitutes a “final adjudication of the entire case.” We disagree. 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.” Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000). Here, as respondent points out, all of respondent's claims alleged in its complaint still remain pending below, such that the challenged order is not appealable as a final judgment as argued by appellant. No statute or court rule permits an appeal from an interlocutory district court order granting a motion to dismiss a counterclaim. See 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”). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Pickering, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The clerk shall strike the “reply” filed by appellant on October 20, 2025. This court's August 6, 2025, order to show cause directed appellant to file a response, which he filed on September 26, 2025, and respondent to file a reply, which it filed on October 14, 2025. Our order to show cause did not direct the filing of appellant's October 20 “reply,” and appellant has neither sought nor obtained leave to file it. In reaching our decision, the court did not consider appellant's October 20 “reply.”