DECKER v. ISAACTOS LLC (2023)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Preliminary review of the docketing statement and the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appears the district court has not entered a final, appealable order. NRAP 3A(b)(l); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (a final order disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs).

When the parties settle an action by agreement, “matters potentially remain for the district court's consideration” “[u]ntil a stipulation to dismiss [the] action is signed and filed in the trial court, or until [the] entire case is resolved by some other final, dispositive ruling.” Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) (noting that the district court's order approving a settlement agreement was interlocutory, since the claims were not dismissed or otherwise finally resolved). Here, the appealed order does not expressly dismiss or dispose of any issue before the court and merely refers to communication between the parties agreeing to dismiss the case. See Ginsburg, 110 Nev. at 446, 874 P.2d at 733; St. Louis Union Sta. v. Discovery Ch. Store, 272 S.W.3d 504, 505 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (noting that, in Missouri, “an order granting a motion to enforce settlement is not a final, appealable judgment. Instead, it is interlocutory and becomes final only after the trial court has entered a judgment on the settlement and dismissed the underlying petition”).

The district court has not entered a final, appealable order. This court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.