Ascendant Universal Fund v. White Stallion Estates

 When our preliminary review of the docketing statements and
the NRAP 3(g) documents revealed potential jurisdictional defects, we
ordered appellant and cross-appellants to show cause why this appeal and
cross-appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. First, it
appeared that the district court has not entered a final, written judgment
adjudicating all the rights and liabilities of all the parties. NRAP 3A(b)(1)
(listing final judgments as appealable); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424,
996 P.2d 416 (2000) (noting that a final judgment is one that disposes of
all the claims and issues of all the parties); Mallin v. Farmers Ins.
Exchange, 106 Nev. 606, 608-09, 797 P.2d 978, 980 (1990) (recognizing
that consolidated district court actions are treated as one case for purposes
of determining whether a final, appealable judgment has been entered).
Second, with respect to the cross-appeal, it appeared that cross-appellants
were not aggrieved parties with standing to appeal, because the district
court ultimately dismissed the claims against them. See NRAP 3A(a);
Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734
(1994).
The parties timely responded. In its response, appellant
argues that all claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims were
resolved by the NRCP 41(e) dismissal. See United Ass'n of Journeymen v.
Manson, 105 Nev. 816, 783 P.2d 955 (1989). Cross-appellants largely
agree with appellant but also explain that the counterclaims against cross-
respondent OneCap Mortgage were not dismissed under NRCP 41(e)
because they were subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11
U.S.C. § 362 at the time the rest of the action was dismissed. No party
addressed whether the NRCP 41(e) dismissal affected Sunwest Homes,
Inc.'s claims asserted in the consolidated case below, Case No. A558034.
Cross-appellants also asserted that although the claims against them were
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
dismissed, they were adversely affected by a prior district court order
denying their motion for summary judgment and should be allowed either
to appeal or to raise arguments concerning the summary judgment denial
within the context of appellant's appeal. See Ford v. Showboat Operating
Co., 110 Nev. 752, 755, 877 P.2d 546, 548 (1994) (recognizing that a party
"who is not aggrieved by a judgment need not appeal from the judgment in
order to raise arguments in support of the judgment not necessarily
accepted by the district court").
The parties have not demonstrated that Sunwest Homes,
Inc.'s claims asserted in the consolidated case below, Case No. A558034,
have been resolved. Moreover, based on cross-appellants' response
showing that the counterclaims against OneCap Mortgage were subject to
the automatic bankruptcy stay as of July 16, 2010, those claims ostensibly
have not yet been resolved below. As a result, it appears that no final
judgment has been entered. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d
416. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'
J.
Hardesty
J.
Parraguirre
'As this appeal and cross-appeal apparently pertain only to the
claims by appellant Ascendant Universal Fund I, LLC, not those against
Ascendant Universal Fund I, the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11
U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (2010), does not prevent this jurisdictional disposition.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
ESSEEME MIIMESEMIEBEINICEEME
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge
Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd.
Serenata Development Group, LLC
Shadow Ranch Indio, LLC
Bailey Kennedy
Joseph S. Sciscento
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I947A
INNEMOVAI MINIM EMBIBV