Gibson v. Gibson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LISA J. GIBSON, No. 68467
Appellant,
vs.
THOMAS J. GIBSON,
FILED
Respondent. MAY 1 8 2016
TRACIE K. LINDEMAN
CLEOF UPREME COURT
BY
DEPUTY CLERKC
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from two post-decrees orders entered in a
divorce matter. When our review of the docketing statement and
documents before this court revealed potential jurisdictional defects, we
ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, (1) it was not clear whether the June
10, 2015, order was appealable, (2) it appeared that the June 12, 2015,
order was duplicative of the June 10 order and thus not appealable, see
Campos-Garcia v. Johnson, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, 331 P.3d 890, 891
(2014), and (3) to the extent the June 10, 2015, order was appealable, it
appeared that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed after the timely
filing of a tolling motion but before that motion was resolved. See NRAP
4(a)(4); AA Primo Builders v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d
1190, 1195 (2010) (a motion for reconsideration can be considered a tolling
motion to alter or amend); cf. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev.
440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) ("This court determines the finality of
an order or judgment by looking to what the order or judgment actually
does, not what it is called.").
In response to our orders, appellant concedes that the June 10
and June 12 orders are duplicative of each other. Appellant also agrees
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10) I947A rtsa*n
that the notice of appeal "may have been premature," but asserts that the
tolling motion was resolved when the parties filed a stipulation and order
to take the motion off-calendar pending the resolution of this appeal.
We conclude that the stipulation and order taking the tolling
motion off-calendar does not constitute a disposition of the motion.
Accordingly, even assuming that the June 10, 2015, order is appealable,
the notice of appeal was prematurely filed from that order and we lack
jurisdiction to consider it on appeal. NRAP 4(a)(6) ("A premature notice of
appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction."). As we also lack
jurisdiction to consider the superfluous June 12, 2015, order, Campos-
Garcia, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 64, 331 at 891, we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
fit,a; , J.
Hardesty
da-ct
Saitta Pickering
Poeuct
cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge
Robin J. Barber
Gibson Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(191%Mits.:-
}We .-- nt90