N. Nev. Comstock Invs., Llc Vs. C & A Invs., L.L.C.
This text of N. Nev. Comstock Invs., Llc Vs. C & A Invs., L.L.C. (N. Nev. Comstock Invs., Llc Vs. C & A Invs., L.L.C.) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
NORTHERN NEVADA COMSTOCK No. 80824 INVESTMENTS, LLC; AND JIANGSON DUKE, LLC, Appellants, vs. C & A INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.; WELLS FILED FARGO BANK NORTHWEST, N.A., AUG 3 1 2020 F/K/A FIRST SECURITY BANK OF EUZABETH A. BROWN UTAH, N.A., CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY 4N Res ondents. DEPU rktIERI
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from an order awarding partial costs and disbursements and an order denying attorney fees. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; William A. Maddox, Judge. Because it appeared that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed after the filing of a tolling motion for reconsideration, this court ordered appellants to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants have filed responses and respondent C & A Investments, LLC, has filed a reply. Appellants argue that the motion filed was merely a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to First Judicial District Court Rule 3.13 and District Court Rule 13.7 (No motion once heard and disposed of shall be renewed in the same cause, nor shall the same matters therein embraced be reheard, unless by leave of the court granted upon motion therefor, after notice of such motion to the adverse parties."). Appellants have attached to their responses the "Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order denying Defendants Motion for Attorney's Fees and Order Awarding Comstock's Partial Costs." The motion
.go :S2 c73 • 41. includes a substantive analysis of the basis for reconsideration; the motion does not appear to anticipate further argument once an order granting the motion for leave is entered. This court looks to what an order or judgment actually does, not at what it is called. Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 445, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994). Appellants effectively filed a motion for reconsideration, which has not yet been resolved. The notice of appeal was prematurely filed, and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
--940"ft-Are"-71 Parraguirre J.
J. Hardesty
Cadish
cc: Chief Judge, The First Judicial District Court Hon. William A. Maddox, Senior Judge Madelyn Shiprnan, Settlement Judge Guild, Gallagher & Fuller, Ltd. Midtown Reno Law Allison MacKenzie, Ltd. Mahe Law, Ltd. Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 41/00. 2 z 411. ; • ad auA. s _VZ.V •- 4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
N. Nev. Comstock Invs., Llc Vs. C & A Invs., L.L.C., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/n-nev-comstock-invs-llc-vs-c-a-invs-llc-nev-2020.