Fielden Hanson Isaacs Miyada Robison Yeh, Ltd. Vs. Tang, M.D.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: August 12, 2020
• Docket: 78358
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FIELDEN HANSON ISAACS MIYADA No. 78358 # ROBISON YEH, LTD., Appellant, FILED vs. DEVIN CHERN TANG, M.D.; AND SUN AUG 1 2 2020 ANESTHESIA SOLUTIONS, A ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERKOFAUPREME COURT NEVADA CORPORATION, BY ' -1 • DEPLUY CLERK Res • ondents. FIELDEN HANSON ISAACS MIYADA No. 79663 ROBISON YEH, LTD., Appellant, vs. DEVIN CHERN TANG, M.D.; AND SUN ANESTHESIA SOLUTIONS, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Res • ondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

These cases present related interlocutory appeals from a district court order denying a motion for prelim inary injunction. and a subsequent order denying a motion for reconsideration, in a restrictive covenant dispute. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Timothy C. Williams, Judge. The covenant at issue purported to prevent respondent, Dr. Devin Chern Tang, from independently providing anesthesiology services to any client of appellant, Fielden Hanson :Isaacs, Miyada, Robinson, Yeh, Ltd_ (FHIMRY), without geographic limitation. Accordingly, the district court refused to enforce the covenant as overbroad. FHIMRY timely appealed, but did not attempt to expedite the appellate process, during which time the covenant expired. This court thus issued an order to show cause why it should not dismiss the appeals as moot. SUPREME Clown OF NEVADA

44010 (0) 1947A 0.10-01170b FHIRMY answered this court's order, arguing that the appeals fell within an exception to rnootness because they raise a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition yet evading review. See Langston v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 110 Nev. 342, 344, 871 P.2d 362, 363 (1994). There is one obvious flaw in this proposition, however— currently pending before this court is a third appeal involving FHIRMY, presenting the same legal issue that they assert deserves resolution. This third appeal is not moot, has been briefed, and is set on an expedited schedule. Under these circumstances, 'EMMY cannot demonstrate the issue is likely to evade review. See Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. „ 460 P.3d 976, 982 (2020). Accordingly, we ORDER these appeals DISMISSED.

.444CA-.0 Stiglich

Silver LLD J.

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Dickinson Wright PLLC Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk