MEADOWS HEALTHCARE LLC AND NAOMIE WARNER v. SHEPHERD EYE CENTER LTD (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a preliminary injunction to enforce a one-year noncompetition restrictive covenant. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Hon. Maria A. Gall, Judge.

Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal as moot. Respondent points out that the challenged preliminary injunction expired by its own terms in August 2026, and asserts this court can no longer grant appellants effective relief. Appellants oppose the motion and respondent has replied.¹

An appeal is moot if this court is unable to grant effective relief with respect to the order challenged on appeal. Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). Moot appeals are generally not justiciable. Id. However, this court may consider a moot appeal “if it involves a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Id.

Appellants do not point to any effective relief that could be granted in this appeal. The injunction has expired and appellants are no longer subject to the restrictions imposed thereunder. Therefore, this appeal has been rendered moot. See id. (explaining that a case presenting a live controversy at its inception may be rendered moot by subsequent events); e.g., All. for Am.’s Future v. State ex rel. Miller, No. 56283, 2012 WL 642540 (Nev. Feb. 24, 2012) (Order of Reversal and Remand) (concluding that an appeal from a preliminary injunction order was moot where the harm caused by the preliminary injunction had occurred and this court could not grant any effective relief).

Appellants contend that this court should nevertheless consider this appeal because the issues on appeal are capable of repetition but will evade review. We disagree. First, we reject appellants’ suggestion that Traffic Control Services, Inc. v. United Rentals Northwest, Inc., 120 Nev. 168, 171-72, 87 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2004), requires a conclusion that all appeals from one-year preliminary injunction orders evade review. And appellants do not demonstrate that the issues raised in this appeal evade review. See, e.g., Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 155, 158, 460 P.3d 976, 982 (2020) (indicating it is appellant's burden to demonstrate that a mootness exception applies); In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 162, 87 P.3d 521, 524 (2004) (concluding that issues relating to temporary guardianships and medical emergencies evade review because they will expire prior to their full litigation); Las Vegas Review-Journal v. City of Henderson, No. 73287, 2019 WL 2252868 (Nev. May 24, 2019) (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding) (explaining that an issue evades review if it cannot be litigated before becoming moot); Bldg. & Const. Trades Council of N. Nev. v. Carson City Sch. Dist., No. 57730, 2012 WL 5991574 (Nev. Nov. 29, 2012) (Order Dismissing Appeal) (declining to apply the capable of repetition but evading review exception where it was not clear that the challenged action was “ ․ too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its natural expiration”); All. for Am.’s Future at *3 (declining to apply the capable of repetition but evading review exception to mootness where “the event giving rise to the necessity of preliminary injunctive relief ha[d] passed,” the parties did not move to expedite the appeal and received several extensions of time to file briefs, and “the legal questions underlying the interlocutory appeal remain[ed] before the district court in the still-pending action”). Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss is granted, we decline to consider this moot appeal and

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Notwithstanding its untimeliness, appellants’ motion for an extension of time to file the opposition is granted. NRAP 26(b)(1)(A). The opposition was filed on September 2, 2026.