Hoa Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.

Nevada Supreme Court

Hoa Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.

DecidedJanuary 31, 2019

Docket75726

StatusUnpublished

This text of Hoa Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. (Hoa Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A.) 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

Hoa Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HOA CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, No. 75726 Appellant, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, NA., A SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC FILE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, F/K/A JAN 3 1 2019 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS BROWN

SERVICING LP, REME COURT

Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion for summary judgment in consolidated district court cases. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge. This court previously issued an order directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It appeared that the order was not appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because claims remained pending in the district court in each of the consolidated cases. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). It also appeared that a May 21, 2018, order purporting to certify an April 26,2018, order as final under NRCP 54(b) was invalid because no order was entered in the district court on April 26, 2018. To the extent the order intended to certify the March 26, 2018, order as final, that order did not appear to be amenable to certification because it did not completely remove either appellant or respondent from the district court proceedings. See NRCP 54(b); Mail/n v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 106 Nev. 606, 610-11, 797 P.2d 978, 981-82 (1990).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 01- 04€14140 947A e Appellant agreed that claims remained pending in the district court and requested additional time to respond to the order to show cause. Appellant then submitted a copy of a district court order resolving all of the claims in one of the two consolidated cases. Appellant did not address the claims remaining in the other consolidated case. Accordingly, this court again ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it appeared that claims still remained pending in the district court. In response to the second order to show cause, appellant points to the May 21, 2018, certification order and asserts that jurisdiction is proper. Since issuance of the orders to show cause, this court overruled precedent requiring that all claims in consolidated district court cases be resolved before a judgment is considered final; resolution of all claims in one of two consolidated cases now constitutes a final judgment. In re Estate of Sarge, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 105, P.3d (2018). Nevertheless, it still appears that the district court has not entered an appealable order in either constituent case. The final judgment in case A-17-758669 was entered pursuant to a stipulation to dismiss claims. Thus, appellant is not aggrieved by that judgment and may not appeal. See NRAP 3A(a) (allowing an appeal by an aggrieved party); Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 115 Nev. 243, 984 P.2d 750 (1999) (indicating that a party is not aggrieved where that party voluntarily stipulated to dismiss a claim). It appears, and appellant does not dispute, that appellant's claims against G-Tech-1, respondent's unjust enrichment claims, and appellant's cross-claims in case A-15-723272 remain pending in the district court. The May 21, 2018, order certifies an April 26, 2018, order as final. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 194T1/4 CD But as previously explained, no order was entered by the district court on that date. To the extent the May 21, 2018, order intended to certify the March 26, 2018, order as final, the certification is improper because claims involving both appellant and respondent remain pending in the district court. See NRCP 54(b) and Drafter's Note-2004 Amendment. Accordingly, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court has entered a final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1) in case A-15-723272. And no other statute or court rule appears to authorize an appeal from the challenged order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). This court thus concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District judge Noggle Law PLLC Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A en,

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

HOA CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, No. 75726 Appellant, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, NA., A SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC FILE HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, F/K/A JAN 3 1 2019 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS BROWN

SERVICING LP, REME COURT

Respondent.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order granting a motion for summary judgment in consolidated district court cases. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge. This court previously issued an order directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It appeared that the order was not appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1) because claims remained pending in the district court in each of the consolidated cases. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). It also appeared that a May 21, 2018, order purporting to certify an April 26,2018, order as final under NRCP 54(b) was invalid because no order was entered in the district court on April 26, 2018. To the extent the order intended to certify the March 26, 2018, order as final, that order did not appear to be amenable to certification because it did not completely remove either appellant or respondent from the district court proceedings. See NRCP 54(b); Mail/n v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 106 Nev. 606, 610-11, 797 P.2d 978, 981-82 (1990).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 01- 04€14140 947A e Appellant agreed that claims remained pending in the district court and requested additional time to respond to the order to show cause. Appellant then submitted a copy of a district court order resolving all of the claims in one of the two consolidated cases. Appellant did not address the claims remaining in the other consolidated case. Accordingly, this court again ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it appeared that claims still remained pending in the district court. In response to the second order to show cause, appellant points to the May 21, 2018, certification order and asserts that jurisdiction is proper. Since issuance of the orders to show cause, this court overruled precedent requiring that all claims in consolidated district court cases be resolved before a judgment is considered final; resolution of all claims in one of two consolidated cases now constitutes a final judgment. In re Estate of Sarge, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 105, P.3d (2018). Nevertheless, it still appears that the district court has not entered an appealable order in either constituent case. The final judgment in case A-17-758669 was entered pursuant to a stipulation to dismiss claims. Thus, appellant is not aggrieved by that judgment and may not appeal. See NRAP 3A(a) (allowing an appeal by an aggrieved party); Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 115 Nev. 243, 984 P.2d 750 (1999) (indicating that a party is not aggrieved where that party voluntarily stipulated to dismiss a claim). It appears, and appellant does not dispute, that appellant's claims against G-Tech-1, respondent's unjust enrichment claims, and appellant's cross-claims in case A-15-723272 remain pending in the district court. The May 21, 2018, order certifies an April 26, 2018, order as final. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 194T1/4 CD But as previously explained, no order was entered by the district court on that date. To the extent the May 21, 2018, order intended to certify the March 26, 2018, order as final, the certification is improper because claims involving both appellant and respondent remain pending in the district court. See NRCP 54(b) and Drafter's Note-2004 Amendment. Accordingly, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court has entered a final judgment appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1) in case A-15-723272. And no other statute or court rule appears to authorize an appeal from the challenged order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). This court thus concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District judge Noggle Law PLLC Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A en,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hoa Capital Advisors, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoa-capital-advisors-llc-v-bank-of-america-na-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack