Paradise Harbor Place Trust v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. ( 2014 )

 appeal because the express requirements under NRCP 54(b) can be
inferred from the tenor of the appealed order.
Having considered the response and reply, we remain
unconvinced that jurisdiction over this appeal is proper, as the defect
identified by this court's previous order has not been cured, and as it
would be improper to infer compliance with NRCP 54(b). See NRCP 54(b);
Hem v. Erhardt, 113 Nev. 1330, 1334 n.4, 948 P.2d 1195, 1197 11.4 (1997);
Aldabe v. Evans, 83 Nev. 135, 425 P.2d 598 (1967); see also Local P-171,
Etc. u. Thompson Farms Co., 642 F.2d 1065, 1071-72 (7th Cir. 1981)
(explaining the important purposes served by requiring both an express
determination of no just reason for delay and express entry of judgment).
Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and thus
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1
AA;
Hardesty
Cita , J.
Douglas Cherry
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
'The appealed order also granted appellant leave to amend its
complaint. As a result, it further appears that, even if thefl district court
had made express NRCP 54(b) determinations, certification of the order as
final would be improper. See WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133,
1136 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[A] plaintiff, who has been given leave to amend,
may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does not choose to file an
amended complaint. A further district court determination must be
obtained "); cf. Transcontinental Oil Co. of Nev. v. Free, 80 Nev. 207, 209,
391 P.2d 317, 318 (1964) (recognizing that the district court does not lose
jurisdiction over a case after entering an order of dismissal with leave to
amend).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A en
Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd.
Brooks Robley LLP
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
0) 1907A e