Kim v. Meadowood Mall Spe

Nevada Supreme Court

Kim v. Meadowood Mall Spe

DecidedOctober 27, 2014

Docket64100

StatusUnpublished

This text of Kim v. Meadowood Mall Spe (Kim v. Meadowood Mall Spe) 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

Kim v. Meadowood Mall Spe, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Hilton Hotels, Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984) (stating that a court cannot create finality through NRCP 54(b) certification when an order is not amenable to certification); see also ICDI Sylvan Pools, Inc. ix Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 342, 810 P.2d 1217, 1219 (1991) (noting that a party's intent not to pursue a counterclaim does not render the• claim moot or operate to formally dismiss the claim). Thus, despite the district court's attempt to create finality, NRCP 54(b) certification was improper, and respondent's counterclaims remain pending below. We cautioned appellant that failure to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction could result in this court's dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not filed a timely response to this court's show cause order, which was due on October 6, 2014. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Pit aA, J. Pi kering

PH Parraguirre

saitf

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Jonathan H. King Kaempfer Crowell/Reno Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ea

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

Hilton Hotels, Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984) (stating that a court cannot create finality through NRCP 54(b) certification when an order is not amenable to certification); see also ICDI Sylvan Pools, Inc. ix Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 342, 810 P.2d 1217, 1219 (1991) (noting that a party's intent not to pursue a counterclaim does not render the• claim moot or operate to formally dismiss the claim). Thus, despite the district court's attempt to create finality, NRCP 54(b) certification was improper, and respondent's counterclaims remain pending below. We cautioned appellant that failure to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction could result in this court's dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not filed a timely response to this court's show cause order, which was due on October 6, 2014. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.