VISWANATHAN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT (2022)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Review of the notice of appeal, docketing statement, and other documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect. Appellant prematurely filed the notice of appeal in the district court after the filing of a timely tolling motion, see NRAP 4(a)(4), but before that motion was formally resolved in a written district court order. To date, it appears the tolling motion remains pending in the district court.¹ As this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a premature notice of appeal, NRAP 4(a)(6) (“A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction.”), this court

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   It appears from the district court minutes that the district court orally denied the tolling motion on January 5, 2022. However, a minute order is insufficient to resolve the motion. See State, Div. of Child and Family Serv's v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004) (“[D]ispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy, must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective”).

2.   Appellant may file a new notice of appeal once the district court has entered a written order resolving the tolling motion, if deemed warranted.