Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
WORLDWIDE HOLDING, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Health Care Center of Southern Nevada, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; A.S.F. Siddiqui, M.D., Ltd., a Nevada Professional Corporation; and Abdul Sami F. Siddiqui, an Individual, Appellants, v. E. LAKE MEAD BOULEVARD TRUST; and Chemical Bank, a Michigan State-Chartered Bank, Respondents.
Worldwide Holding, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Health Care Center of Southern Nevada, Inc., a Nevada Corporation; A.S.F. Siddiqui, M.D., Ltd., a Nevada Professional Corporation; and Abdul Sami F. Siddiqui, an Individual, Appellants, v. E. Lake Mead Boulevard Trust; and Chemical Bank, a Michigan State-Chartered Bank, Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS
Docket No. 76718 is an appeal from district court orders granting summary judgment and entering judgment. Docket No. 77338 is an appeal from an order awarding attorney fees and costs and an amended judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.
This court previously ordered appellants to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It appeared that the district court had not yet entered a final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because respondent E. Lake Mead Boulevard Trust's counterclaims remained pending in the district court. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). It further appeared that without a final judgment, the order awarding attorney fees and costs was not appealable as a special order after final judgment. See NRAP 3A(b)(8).
In response, appellants acknowledge that at least one claim remains pending in the district court. Accordingly, it appears that the district court has not yet entered a final judgment.1 In the absence of a final judgment, the orders challenged in Docket No. 77338 are not appealable as special orders after final judgment. And no other statute or court rule appears to authorize appeals from any of the challenged orders. 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”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and
ORDERS these appeals DISMISSED.2
FOOTNOTES
1. To the extent appellants suggest that a final judgment has been entered because the counterclaims were abandoned, this contention lacks merit. See KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc. v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 342-43, 810 P.2d 1217, 1219 (1991) (the fact that a party is not inclined to pursue its counterclaim “does not render the counterclaim moot or operate as a formal dismissal of the claim”).
2. Any aggrieved party may file a new notice of appeal once the district court enters a final judgment.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 76718, No. 77338
Decided: November 15, 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)