TINA LEAH ROHMILLER v. IAN AKESON (2026)

ORDER REINSTATING FAST TRACK BRIEFING IN DOCKET NO. 92490, CONSOLIDATING APPEALS IN DOCKET NOS. 92490 AND 92888, DIRECTING TRANSMISSION OF RECORD, AND DISMISSING APPEAL IN DOCKET NO. 92643

These are pro se appeals from a district court order denying a motion to modify child custody (Docket No. 92490 and 92643) and a district court order denying motions to rehear, reconsider, or set aside the child custody order (Docket Nos. 92888). The district court entered an order on December 7, 2025, denying appellant's motion to modify child custody. Appellant filed several postjudgment motions for relief from that order. On April 27, 2026, this court entered an order, in Docket No. 92490, directing the district court to resolve appellant's pending motions to rehear, reconsider, or set aside the December 7 order and suspending briefing. The district court entered an order denying said motions on May 15, 2026.

Jurisdiction now appears complete in Docket No. 92490, and briefing is hereby reinstated. Appellant's appeal of the May 15 order, Docket No. 92888, arises from the same district court case and involves the same parties and counsel and consolidation of these appeals appears appropriate. Accordingly, the appeals in Docket Nos. 92490 and 92888 are hereby consolidated. NRAP 3(b)(2). Appellant shall have 40 days from the date of this order to file and serve a single child custody fast track opening brief addressing the issues raised in both Docket No. 92490 and Docket No. 92888. See NRAP 3E(d)(1). Thereafter, briefing shall proceed in accordance with NRAP 3E(d), (e).

Having reviewed the documents on file in these pro se appeals, this court concludes that review of the complete record is warranted. NRAP 10(a)(1). Accordingly, within 30 days from the date of this order, the clerk of the district court shall transmit to the clerk of this court a certified copy of the trial court record in District Court Case No. D-19-592237-C. See NRAP 11(a)(2) (providing that the complete “record must contain each and every paper, pleading and other document filed in, or submitted for filing in, the district court,” as well as “any previously prepared transcripts of the proceedings in the district court”). The record shall not include any original exhibits filed in the district court. NRAP 11(a)(1).

Finally, appellant's notice of appeal filed in Docket No. 92643 challenges the same orders as the notice of appeal filed in Docket No. 92490. As these appeals are duplicative, the appeal in Docket No. 92643 is hereby dismissed in favor of the appeal in Docket No. 92490.

It is so ORDERED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.