PERREIRA v. EISENBERG (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Review of the notice of appeal and other documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. The notice of appeal identifies only one appealable order—the district court's October 6, 2025, “Order from August 11, 2025 Hearing,” which establishes custody of a minor child. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”); NRAP 3A(b)(7) (allowing appeals from district court orders finally resolving a child custody issue). However, the notice of appeal was untimely filed from that order. See NRAP 4(a)(1). Service of notice of entry of the order was made, by mail, on October 7, 2025. Appellant filed the notice of appeal in the district court on December 11, 2025, well past expiration of the 30-day appeal period set by NRAP 4(a)(1). This court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely appeal. See Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

We note that appellant's appeal in Docket No. 91613 challenges the same October 6. 2025, order challenged in this appeal. Accordingly, appellant may challenge the October 6 order within the context of that appeal.

It is so ORDERED.