GHANEIAN v. GHANEIAN (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Respondents move to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, pointing out that no final judgment has been entered below and asserting that the order is not appealable under any other authority. Appellant opposes the motion, arguing that the order is appealable as an injunction.

As the April 17 order enforces a settlement agreement but does not otherwise resolve the parties’ claims, it is not appealable as a final judgment. See NRAP 3A(b)(1); Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, 129 Nev. 343, 346-47, 301 P.3d 850, 852 (2013); KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc. v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 342-43, 810 P.2d 1217, 1219 (1991) (recognizing that, generally, all claims must be formally determined or dismissed before a matter is deemed finally resolved). Further, the April 17 order is not appealable as an injunction. The order merely directs that appellant comply with the terms of the settlement agreement; no injunction was sought below, and the order does not purport to grant a preliminary injunction or consider the relevant injunction factors. See NRS 33.010; NRAP 65; Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Buchanan, 112 Nev. 1146, 1150, 924 P.2d 716, 719 (1996). Nor does the August 3, 2026, order further enforcing the agreement, the merits of which is not before us in this appeal, demonstrate that the April 17 order is an injunction.

As additional review is not necessary and appellant has not proposed any jurisdictional cure, we decline appellant's invitation to order supplemental briefing or permit procedural correction. See Moranv. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001) (“[T]he burden rests squarely upon the shoulders of a party seeking to invoke our jurisdiction to establish, to our satisfaction, that this court does in fact have jurisdiction.”). Additionally, we deny respondents’ request to award NRAP 38 sanctions, and any request for costs under NRAP 39 should be made by separate motion, if deemed warranted. In light of this order, appellant's emergency motion for stay, as well as the related motions to file an overlength stay motion and opposition thereto, are denied as moot.¹

As this court lacks jurisdiction, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that appellant properly filed the proposed stay motion before the excess pages motion was resolved.