JOAN VAN BLARCOM AN INDIVIDUAL v. ROCCO LUIERE JR AN INDIVIDUAL (2023)

ORDER PARTIALL Y DISMISSING APPEAL

These are consolidated appeals. Docket No. 85602 is an appeal from a directed verdict on appellant's counterclaim and an order denying appellant's motion for attorney fees and costs.

Because it appeared that the notice of appeal had been filed after the timely filing of a tolling motion seeking reconsideration of the order denying attorney fees and costs and before the tolling motion had been resolved, this court directed appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as to that order. See NRAP 4(a)(2). Appellant has filed a response and states that the district court “did not reconsider” the motion. Respondent confirms the assertion in his reply. Indeed, review of the district court docket entries indicates that the district court has not addressed the motion and that no written order has been entered resolving the motion for reconsideration. A timely tolling motion terminates the 30-day appeal period, and a notice of appeal is of no effect if it is filed after such a tolling motion is filed, and before the district court enters a written order finally resolving the motion. See NRAP 4(a)(2), Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987).

It is appellant's 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). Appellant fails to so demonstrate. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the order denying the motion for attorney fees and costs and therefore dismisses the appeal in Docket No. 85602 as to that order.

It is so ORDERED.

Cadish, J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.