CLARK COUNTY AND THE CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS LICENSE v. LESLIE DOYLE AN INDIVIDUAL AND GINA VEERAGOUDAR AN INDIVIDUAL (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a petition for judicial review of appellants’ determination to deny respondents’ applications for short-term rental licenses. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Crystal Eller, Judge.

Initial review of the docketing statement and documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect. Specifically, it appeared that the district court remanded the matter for further substantive findings and no final judgment was entered below. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (“[A] final judgment is one that 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.”) Accordingly, this court directed appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants have filed a response to the order to show cause and respondents have filed a reply.

In response to the order to show cause, counsel for appellants argues that the district court resolved the issues before it, suggesting that the remand was only for implementation of the district court's decision and the next stage of the administrative process. Appellants argue that the district court's findings regarding the unconstitutionality of certain sections of the Clark County Code will evade judicial review if this appeal is dismissed.

Respondents argue that the challenged order is not final because the district court did not order appellants to issue the licenses. Instead, the district court remanded the license applications for reconsideration and further review, including the submission of updated documentation for consideration.

Although a remanded matter may also be final, see Bally's Grand Hotel and Casino v. Reeves, 112 Nev. 1487, 1488, 929 P.2d 936, 937 (1996), the order at issue remands for further substantive proceedings to determine whether respondents qualify for short term rental licenses, cf. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. O'Brien, 129 Nev. 679, 680-81, 310 P.3d 581, 582 (2013) (“[A] district court order remanding a matter to an administrative agency is not an appealable order, unless the order constitutes a final judgment on the merits and remands merely for collateral tasks․”); State, Taxicab Auth. v. Greenspan, 109 Nev. 1022, 1024-25, 862 P.2d 423, 424-25 (1993) (declining to adopt the federal “collateral order doctrine,” and recognizing that the district court's order of remand to an administrative agency for proceedings on the merits was not appealable as a final judgment); accord Clark Cnty. Liquor v. Clark, 102 Nev. 654, 657-58, 730 P.2d 443, 446 (1986). We lack jurisdiction and

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.