Staples v. Dist. Ct. (Martinez-Jaimes) ( 2014 )

 warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d
840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the parties' arguments, we conclude that
our intervention is warranted. Id. Specifically, an order dismissing the
underlying case was entered in July 2012. This order constituted a final
judgment, as it effectively resolved all the parties' claims. Lee v. GNLV
Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000). "[O]nce a final judgment is
entered, the district court lacks jurisdiction to reopen it, absent a proper
and timely motion under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure." SFPP,
L.P. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 608, 612, 173 P.3d 715, 717
(2007). Thus, if real party in interest wanted to challenge the July 2012
dismissal order, such a challenge needed to be made in conformity with
the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Because her August 2013 "Motion to
Re-Open Case" failed in this regard, the district court lacked jurisdiction
to grant the motion. Id.; see NRCP 60(b) (providing generally that a party
must file a motion for relief from judgment within six months from when
written notice of entry of the order is served on that party). 2
As any further proceedings before the district court in this
matter would be in excess of the district court's jurisdiction, our
intervention is warranted. SFPP, L.P., 123 Nev. at 612, 173 P.3d at 718;
Greene, 115 Nev. at 396, 990 P.2d at 187. Accordingly, we
2 Real party in interest does not dispute that she received notice of
entry of the July 2012 dismissal order. Nor does she dispute receiving
notice of the other post-dismissal filings in this matter, including
petitioner's October 2012 "Request For Trial De Novo." Real party in
interest suggests that this filing demonstrates that both sides were under
the mistaken belief that the case had not been dismissed. A review of this
filing demonstrates that real party in interest's suggestion is meritless.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK
OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF PROHIBITION directing the
district court to vacate its October 4, 2013, order and precluding the
district court from conducting any further proceedings in District Court
Case No. A631056.
Pickering
Saitta
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Law Offices of David M. Jones/Las Vegas
Gazda & Tadayon
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A )(ZIW