TIRSO VEGA ALVARADO v. ERICA CONNOR (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (91879) AND REINSTATING BRIEFING (92212)

Docket No. 91879 is an appeal from a November 20, 2025, amended order awarding attorney fees, and an August 27, 2025, order granting a motion for a mistrial. Docket No. 92212 is an appeal from a subsequently-entered final judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.

When initial review of the docketing statements and other documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, this court ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal in Docket No. 91879 should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, it appeared the orders on appeal in Docket No. 91879 are interlocutory orders that are not independently appealable. See Consol. Generator Nevada, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998). It also appeared, however, that the challenged interlocutory orders are subject to review in the context of the appeal from the final judgment in Docket No. 92212. See id.

Appellant agrees that the November 20, 2025, and August 27, 2025, orders are interlocutory and not independently appealable. He indicates that he has no objection to the dismissal of Docket No. 91879 if he is permitted to challenge those orders in the context of the appeal from the final judgment in Docket No. 92212. Appellant mistakenly asserts that an amended notice of appeal from the amended judgment on jury verdict was filed in Docket No. 91879 on June 23, 2026. Although a docket entry reflecting the filing of the amended notice of appeal appears on both docket sheets due to the consolidation of these appeals, the amended notice of appeal is officially filed only in Docket No. 92212. Under these circumstances, we order as follows.

The appeal in Docket No. 91879 is dismissed. Briefing of Docket No. 92212 is reinstated. Appellant shall have 60 days from the date of this order to file and serve the opening brief and appendix. Appellant may include in his briefing any argument regarding interlocutory district court orders entered prior to the final judgment. Failure to timely file the opening brief and appendix may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of Docket No. 92212. NRAP 31(d)(1).

It is so ORDERED.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.