SHANE HAVENS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ELITE MACHINING SERVICES LLP NEVADA CORPORATION v. CARWIL LLC NEVADA CORPORATION (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a December 8, 2025, district court order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order. Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; Michael Montero, Judge.

When our preliminary review of the documents before us revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, we directed appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, we noted that it was unclear whether the December order denying the motion to dissolve the temporary restraining order is appealable.

Appellants and respondent have timely filed responses. Appellants assert that, when orders styled as temporary restraining orders remain in force beyond the time allowed, federal courts have treated them as preliminary injunctions. They contend that this court should do the same here, such that the December order would be appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(3) as an order refusing to dissolve an injunction. Respondent asserts that the order at issue here merely refuses to dissolve a temporary restraining order, which is not appealable.

In this instance, we decline to adopt the approach advocated by appellants. This court may consider appeals only when authorized by statute or court rule. Brown v. AMC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). While preliminary injunctions and orders refusing to dissolve them are appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(3), the district court's temporary restraining orders at issue here, while perhaps having some features similar to an injunction, clearly convey the district court's intent to issue a temporary restraining order, as opposed to an injunction. Temporary restraining orders are not appealable. Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 127 Nev. 896, 900, 266 P.3d 618, 620 (2011) (stating that a temporary restraining order is not appealable); see Sugarman Co. v. Morse Bros., 50 Nev. 191, 255 P. 1010 (1927) (recognizing that an order denying a temporary restraining order is not appealable); Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 442 (1974) (declining to treat an order denying a motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order as granting a preliminary injunction where there was no indication that the court and the parties had treated the motion as such and the order did not contain the findings and conclusions required of an injunction or clearly state the court's intent to enter an injunction of unlimited duration). This court endeavors to maintain clear and absolute jurisdictional rules to provide fair notice to all parties. Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 448, 874 P.2d 729, 735 (1994) (adhering to a narrow definition of party in furtherance of simple, clear, and certain rules of appealability). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.