PATTERSON v. PATTERSON (2021)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

When our preliminary review of the docketing statement and the NRAP 3(g) documents revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, we directed appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it appears the notice of appeal was prematurely filed, before the entry of a final written judgment, and was therefore of no effect. See NRAP 3(a). Appellant has filed a response.

Appellant argues in his response that the order appealed from is effectively a final order, and that the matter is set for a decree to be entered at a later time, based on the terms discussed by the parties. See NRAP 3A(b)(1). Appellant alternatively argues that this appeal pertains to an opposition and countermotion where appellant requested the district court hold a new evidentiary hearing or trial which was effectively a request for a new trial. See NRAP 3A(b)(2). However, regardless of whether the district court's minute order was effectively a final judgment or an order denying a motion for a new trial, to the extent that appellant's appeal is from the district court's minute order, the appeal is premature. See NRAP 4(a)(1); Rust v. Clark Cty. School Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that the district court's oral pronouncement from the bench, the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order cannot be appealed). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.