Estrada Vs. Warner

Nevada Supreme Court

Estrada Vs. Warner

481 P.3d 1254

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 8, 2021

Docket81642

StatusPublished

This text of 481 P.3d 1254 (Estrada Vs. Warner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estrada Vs. Warner, 481 P.3d 1254 (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LARRY ESTRADA, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 81642 Appellant, vs. SHEILA A. WARNER, Res • ondent. FILED MAR 0 8 2021

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting appellant's motion to set aside a default judgment but denying appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and motion for forum non conveniens. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; William D. Kephart, Judge. Previously, this court entered an order to show cause directing appellant to demonstrate this court's jurisdiction and show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. An order granting a motion to set aside a default judgment is not an independently appealable order, see Estate of Adams v. Fallini, 132 Nev. 814, 818, 386 P.3d 621, 624 (2016), and appellant is not aggrieved by the decision. In addition, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to dismiss. See NRAP 3A(b) (designating orders and judgments from which an appeal may be taken); see also First interstate Bank v. H.C.T.. Inc., 108 Nev, 242, 250, 828 P.2d 405, 410 (1992). Appellant has responded and argues that this court should find the challenged order appealable as "[a]n order changing or refusing to change the place of triar as permitted by NRAP 3A(b)(6). Appellant argues that he was compelled to seek dismissal because a Nevada court is unable to change the place of trial to a foreign country; thus the only way to get the matter to the allegedly proper forum is to dismiss the action so that it can be refiled in the Philippines. Appellant does not describe a motion to change venue; appellant filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the challenged order, and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Cadish

A , J. J. Pickering Herndon

cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 19 Paul M. Haire, Settlement Judge Gesund & Pailet, LLC Claggett & Sykes Law Firm Morris Law Center Eighth District Court Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LARRY ESTRADA, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 81642 Appellant, vs. SHEILA A. WARNER, Res • ondent. FILED MAR 0 8 2021

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting appellant's motion to set aside a default judgment but denying appellant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and motion for forum non conveniens. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; William D. Kephart, Judge. Previously, this court entered an order to show cause directing appellant to demonstrate this court's jurisdiction and show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. An order granting a motion to set aside a default judgment is not an independently appealable order, see Estate of Adams v. Fallini, 132 Nev. 814, 818, 386 P.3d 621, 624 (2016), and appellant is not aggrieved by the decision. In addition, no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to dismiss. See NRAP 3A(b) (designating orders and judgments from which an appeal may be taken); see also First interstate Bank v. H.C.T.. Inc., 108 Nev, 242, 250, 828 P.2d 405, 410 (1992). Appellant has responded and argues that this court should find the challenged order appealable as "[a]n order changing or refusing to change the place of triar as permitted by NRAP 3A(b)(6). Appellant argues that he was compelled to seek dismissal because a Nevada court is unable to change the place of trial to a foreign country; thus the only way to get the matter to the allegedly proper forum is to dismiss the action so that it can be refiled in the Philippines. Appellant does not describe a motion to change venue; appellant filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the challenged order, and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Cadish

A , J. J. Pickering Herndon

cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 19 Paul M. Haire, Settlement Judge Gesund & Pailet, LLC Claggett & Sykes Law Firm Morris Law Center Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

481 P.3d 1254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estrada-vs-warner-nev-2021.

Opinion

J. Cadish

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack