WILLICK LAW GROUP v. ACOSTA (2019)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order concluding that a contingency fee agreement is unenforceable and awarding attorney fees. When our initial review of the notice of appeal and documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, this court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it appeared that appellant was not a party to the underlying district court proceedings and thus lacked standing to appeal. See NRAP 3A(a) (allowing an appeal by an aggrieved party); Albert D. Massi, Ltd. v. Bellmyre, 111 Nev. 1520, 1521, 908 P.2d 705, 706 (1995) (to qualify as a party, a person or entity must have been named in the complaint and served with process).

In response, Appellant seems to concede that he was not a party to the district court proceedings. Appellant's invitation to reconsider the Massi opinion is declined. The court also declines to consider appellant's remaining arguments as they are not supported by cogent argument. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Restaurant, 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, appellant lacks standing to appeal and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.