BRENDAN HARDIN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF FINLEY SPICER HARDIN AND HEATHER HARDIN v. UHS OF DELAWARE INC AND PROMINENCE PREFERRED HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY INC (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting “a motion to compel arbitration or motion to dismiss for failure to submit to arbitration and or mediation.” (emphasis added). Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Kathleen M. Drakulich, Judge.

Initial review of the docketing statement and documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appeared that no statute or court rule authorized the appeal from an order granting a motion to compel arbitration. See Kindred v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 405, 409, 996 P.2d 903, 906 (2000). This court also noted appellants’ claim in the docketing statement that the challenged order is appealable as a final judgment because it dismissed appellants’ complaint, though the order does not appear to directly address the alternative “motion to dismiss for failure to submit to mediation or arbitration.”

In their response to the order to show cause, appellants argue that the district court's order should be interpreted as dismissing the complaint to compel arbitration, relying upon analogous federal court interpretations of federal rules to advance their position that the order is appealable. See Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79. 121 S. Ct. 513, 516, 148 L. Ed. 2d 373 (2000) (holding that when a United States District Court orders parties to arbitration and dismisses all claims, that decision is final under the federal arbitration act). Respondents replied to appellants’ response to the order to show cause, arguing that appellants seek to challenge an interlocutory order to compel arbitration that is not substantively appealable.

Federal law is not binding in this instance because state law determines the appealability of orders related to arbitration. See NRS 38.247. Orders are interpreted by evaluating what they do, regardless of what the order or judgment is called, and the district court order at issue compels the parties to arbitration. Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994). An order compelling arbitration is not appealable. Kindred v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 405, 409, 996 P.2d 903, 906 (2000); Tallman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. 713, 718, 359 P.3d 113, 117 (2015) (quoting Clark Cnty. v. Empire Elec., Inc., 96 Nev. 18, 20, 604 P.2d 352, 353 (1980) (internal quotations omitted) (“[I]f at the very threshold of the proceeding the defaulting party could appeal and thereby indefinitely delay the matter of arbitration, the object of the law [favoring arbitration] and the purpose of the written agreement of the parties would be entirely defeated.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.