THE BUSHIDOKAN TEMPLE UTAH CORPORATION SOLE AND BUSHIDOKAN FEDERATION AND HIS SUCCESSORS CORPORATION SOLE BY AND THROUGH MARIE TIERNEY ACTING CANCELLOR CUSTODIAN OF OFFICE v. HARVINDER GOGNA AN INDIVIDUAL AND HERBERT LAGUE INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF THE BUSHIDOKAN TEMPLE UTAH CORPORATION SOLE (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from a December 15, 2025, district court order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; David A. Hardy, Judge.

Review of the documents submitted to this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears that the district court has not entered a final written judgment adjudicating all the rights and liabilities of all the parties. A final judgment is one that finally resolves all claims and issues against all parties to an action and leaves nothing to the district court's consideration except post-judgment issues. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000). There can be only one final judgment in a case. Alper v. Posin, 77 Nev. 328, 363 P.2d 502 (1961), overruled on other grounds by Lee, 116 Nev. at 426, 996 P.2d at 417. Although the district court entered an order granting respondent Harvinder Gogna's motion to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, the order granting the motion merely finds that the settlement agreement is enforceable and directs further action in accordance therewith. The court's order does not enter judgment on the parties’ claims, dismiss the complaint, or appear to otherwise formally resolve the claims raised. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 301 P.3d 850 (2013) (explaining that an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is not a final judgment where it does not enter judgment in favor of a party or otherwise resolve the pending claims); Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) (concluding that a district court order approving a settlement agreement was interlocutory). Further, while the district court entered an order on February 17, 2026, titled “Omnibus Order and Final Judgment,” that order resolves various motions, including a motion to vacate the December 15 order and a motion to expunge lis pendens, but it does not formally resolve the claims between the parties. Thus, it appears that there has been no final judgment or disposition in the case below, and we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. NRAP 3A(b)(1). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.¹

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, appellants’ emergency motions for stay are denied as moot. Additionally, we note that, as entities, appellants may not be represented by a nonlawyer in this court. Sunde v. Contel of Cal., 112 Nev. 541, 542, 915 P.2d 298, 299 (1996).