ICARO MEDIA GROUP INC NEVADA CORPORATION PAUL FELLER AN INDIVIDUAL AND ELIZABETH ANNE PETTY AN INDIVIDUAL v. ROBERT PETTY AN INDIVIDUAL (2023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL, DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, AND GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

These are two related appeals from a final judgment (Docket No. 85770) and a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration after final judgment (Docket No. 86078). Because no statute or court rule appears to authorize an independent appeal from a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration, this court issued an order to show cause in Docket No. 86078. In that order, this court stated that “[t]he order denying the motion for reconsideration may be reviewed in the context of the appeal in Docket No. 85770.” Cf. A Cab, LLC v. Murray, 137 Nev. 805,501 P.3d 961 (2021) (“Orders deciding an NRCP 59(e) motion are not independently appealable but are reviewed for an abuse of discretion when included with a proper appeal.”).

Appellants and respondent have now filed a joint motion, apparently in response to the order to show cause, to consolidate these two appeals. While this motion addresses the potential jurisdictional defect, it fails to demonstrate why Docket No. 86078 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It is appellants’ burden ”to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court does in fact have jurisdiction.” Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001). Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal in Docket No. 86078, that appeal is dismissed.

In the joint motion to consolidate, an extension of the briefing schedule was requested. Subsequently, appellants filed a motion for a second extension of time to file the opening brief and appendix in Docket No. 85770. The motion is granted. See NRAP 26(b)(1)(B); NRAP 31(b)(3)(A)(iv). This court will take no action in regard to the request included in the joint motion to consolidate. Appellants shall have until May 11, 2023, to file and serve the opening brief and appendix in Docket No. 85770. No further extensions shall be permitted absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Id. Counsel's caseload normally will not be deemed such a circumstance. Cf. Varnum v. Grady, 90 Nev. 374, 376, 528 P.2d 1027, 1028-29 (1974). Failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal in Docket No. 85770. See NRAP 31(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Cadish, J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.