King v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: August 3, 2018
• Docket: 76463
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SUSAN KING, No. 76463 Appellant, VS.

MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC.; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, FILE, LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO , LLC; MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP, AUG 0 3 2018 ELIZABETH A. ROWN INC.; TIMOTHY FRANK MCELROY; CLERK OF SUPREME COURT AND ALLEN SPAULDING, AN DY DEPUTY CLn — INDIVIDUAL, Respondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from an order ostensibly entered June 27, 2018. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge. Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals certain jurisdictional defects. Specifically, two documents were filed in the district court on June 27, 2018; 1 one is a proposed order denying appellant's motion for reconsideration. The other is a proposed order granting in part respondents' motion for attorney fees and costs. It is not clear which order appellant wishes to challenge, but neither one has been signed by the judge; accordingly, neither proposed order is appealable. See Rust v. Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987) (explaining that the district court's oral pronouncement from

'An order allowing appellant to proceed in forma pauperis was also filed on June 27, 2018. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A tigni in the bench, the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order cannot be appealed). Moreover, an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not independently appealable; the appeal must be taken from the final judgment. See Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 417, 168 P.3d 1050, 1054 (2007). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction and we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Cherry

.04•AsbalA Stiglich

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge Susan King Allen Spaulding Schiff Hardin LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A .A1W