Rjs Legacy, Llc Vs. Ibms Llc

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
RJS LEGACY, LLC, A DELAWARE No. 82577
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
LISA SHAMBRO,
Appellants,
vs. FILED
IBMS LLC, IN ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY, AND DERIVATIVELY ON OCT 2 1 2021
BEHALF OF FOURTEENER, LLC, A ELIZABE A. BROWN
CLERK • F - PROM COURT
NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY gy AV"
cti
COMPANY; MITCHELL CHAIT; AND
DANIELLE SLAUGHTER, AS
SUCCESSOR INTERIM RECEIVER,
Res ondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court order appointing a
successor interim receiver. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County;
Nancy L. Allf, Judge.
Respondent IBMS LLC has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal
for lack of jurisdiction. IBMS contends that NRAP 3A(b)(4) does not allow
an appeal from an order appointing a successor receiver. In opposition,
appellants assert that the plain language of NRAP 3A(b)(4) allows an
appeal from an order appointing a receiver and the challenged order
appoints a receiver; the rule is not limited to orders appointing an initial
'IBMS also asserts that (1) the order is not appealable as a final
judgment and (2) appellants cannot raise any arguments in this appeal
related to the original order appointing a receiver. See NRAP 3A(b)(1).
However, appellants specifically disclaim jurisdiction based on the entry of
final judgment and appear to disclaim any attempt to appeal from the
original order appointing a receiver.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(01 1947A ADP
receiver. Having considered the motion, opposition, and reply, this court
agrees with IBMS.
NRAP 3A(b)(4) permits an appeal from a district court order
'appointing or refusing to appoint a receiver or vacating or refusing to
vacate an order appointing a receiver." This rules provides an exception to
the final judgment rule by allowing an appeal from an interlocutory order.
Therefore, the rule must be strictly construed. Yonker Constr., Inc. v.
Hulme, 126 Nev. 590, 592, 248 P.3d 313, 314 (2010) ("Exceptions to the final
judgment rule are narrowly construed."). So construed, NRAP 3A(b)(4) does
not permit an appeal from a district court order appointing a successor
receiver. Other courts have reached similar conclusions. See City & Cty. of
San Francisco v. Shers, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 57 (Ct. App. 1995) (holding that a
statute allowing an appeal from "an order appointing a receivee does not
allow an appeal from an order appointing a successor receiver); Swate v.
Johnston, 981 S.W.2d 923, 925 (Tex. App. 1998) (concluding that a statute
allowing an interlocutory appeal from "an order appointing a receivee does
not allow an appeal from an order appointing a successor receiver); State v.
Superior Ct. of Spokane Cty., 34 P. 431 (1893) (holding that a statute
allowing an appeal "from an order appointing or removing or refusing to
appoint or remove a receiver," does not permit an appeal from an order
removing a receiver and appointing a more suitable person in his place); E.
H. Schopler, Annotation, Appealability of Order Appointing, or Refusing to
Appoint, Receiver, 72 A.L.R.2d 1009 § 2[a] (originally published in 1960)
(Irrespective of whether, as a general rule, an order appointing a receiver
is subject to direct appeal in a particular jurisdiction, it has been held, with
few exceptions, that an order merely substituting another receiver for one
already appointed is not so appealable.").
As no other statute or court rule appears to allow an appeal
from the challenged order, 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"), this court lacks jurisdiction. The
motion to dismiss is granted and this court
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
A1045(.."-•° 1/4.-Lt/AM) , J.
Stiglich Silver
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Paul M. Haire, Settlement Judge
Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
Gordon Law, LLC
McNutt Law Firm, P.C.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
0) 1947A
3