Kassebaum v. State, Dep'T Of Corrs. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    SHARI KASSEBAUM,                                       No. 84008
    Appellant,
    vs.
    THE STATE OF NEVADA
    FILED
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    MAY 1 3 2022
    Res ondent.
    ELIZABETH A. BROWN
    CLERnSUPREME COURT
    DY
    CLERK
    DEPIttAAM.dr
    ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
    This is an appeal from a district court order granting
    appellant's petition for judicial review and remanding the matter to the
    Department of Administration for further administrative proceedings.
    Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joanna Kishner, Judge.
    Respondent moves to dismiss this appeal for lack ofjurisdiction,
    contending, among other things, that the order is not substantively
    appealable. In particular, respondent argues that the order is not a final
    judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1) or NRS 233B.150 because the
    order remands for further substantive proceedings. Appellant opposes the
    motion, asserting that although the order was not final at the time it was
    entered, it became final when the decision on remand was entered.
    NRS 233B.150 provides for an appeal of a final judgment
    entered by the district court in accordance with the rules established by the
    Supreme Court. Similarly, NRAP 3A(b)(1) allows an appeal from a final
    judgment entered by the district court. IA] 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." Lee v. ONLV Corp., 
    116 Nev. 424
    , 426, 996 P.2d
    SUPREME COURT   416, 417 (2000). In the administrative context, this court has consistently
    OF
    NEVADA
    (Cn 1947A
    held that a district court order remanding for further substantive
    proceedings is not appealable. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. O'Brien, 
    129 Nev. 679
    , 680-81, 
    310 P.3d 581
    , 582 (2013) ("[Aj 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, such as calculating benefits found due."), State
    Taxicab Auth. v. Green.spun, 
    109 Nev. 1022
    , 1025, 
    862 P.2d 423
    , 424-25
    (1993) (concluding that a district court order remanding to the State of
    Nevada Taxicab Authority to consider evidence it initially refused to
    consider was not an appealable final judgrnent because it did not finally
    resolve the question presented); Clark County Liquor v. Clark, 
    102 Nev. 654
    , 657-58, 
    730 P.2d 443
    , 446 (1986) (concluding that a district court order
    remanding to conduct discovery was not appealable as a final judgment);
    see also Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves, 
    112 Nev. 1487
    , 
    929 P.2d 936
     (1996) (a district court order concluding that appellant was entitled to
    benefits but remanding for the calculation of benefits was a final,
    appealable order because it finally resolved the substantive issue
    presented—whether appellant was entitled to benefits). Appellant concedes
    that the challenged order was not final at the time it was entered. And her
    assertion that the district court's order became a final judgment once the
    decision upon remand was entered is unsupported by cogent argument or
    citation to authority.
    The order challenged in this appeal is not a final judgment
    appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1) or NRS 233B.150.1 As appellant does not
    assert that any other statute or court rule allows an appeal from the order,
    Given this conclusion, this court does not reach respondent's other
    1
    arguments in support of the dismissal of this appeal.
    2
    see Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 
    129 Nev. 343
    , 345, 
    301 P.3d 850
    , 851
    (2013) (this court "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court
    rule"); Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 
    117 Nev. 525
    , 527, 
    25 P.3d 898
    ,
    899 (2001) (the burden of establishing appellate jurisdiction lies with
    appellant), this court grants respondenes motion and
    ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
    Silver
    , J.
    Cadish
    cc:   Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge
    Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge
    Law Office of Daniel Marks
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Attorney General/Reno
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COORT
    Of
    NEVADA
    to) 1947A
    3