Paradise Harbor Place Trust v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.

Opinion

appeal because the express requirements under NRCP 54(b) can be inferred from the tenor of the appealed order.

Having considered the response and reply, we remain unconvinced that jurisdiction over this appeal is proper, as the defect identified by this court's previous order has not been cured, and as it would be improper to infer compliance with NRCP 54(b). See NRCP 54(b); Hem v. Erhardt, 113 Nev. 1330, 1334 n.4, 948 P.2d 1195, 1197 11.4 (1997); Aldabe v. Evans, 83 Nev. 135, 425 P.2d 598 (1967); see also Local P-171, Etc. u. Thompson Farms Co., 642 F.2d 1065, 1071-72 (7th Cir. 1981) (explaining the important purposes served by requiring both an express determination of no just reason for delay and express entry of judgment). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and thus ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1

AA;

Hardesty

Cita , J.

Douglas Cherry cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge

'The appealed order also granted appellant leave to amend its complaint. As a result, it further appears that, even if thefl district court had made express NRCP 54(b) determinations, certification of the order as final would be improper. See WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[A] plaintiff, who has been given leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does not choose to file an amended complaint. A further district court determination must be obtained "); cf. Transcontinental Oil Co. of Nev. v. Free, 80 Nev. 207, 209, 391 P.2d 317, 318 (1964) (recognizing that the district court does not lose jurisdiction over a case after entering an order of dismissal with leave to amend).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A en

Law Offices of Michael F. Bohn, Ltd. Brooks Robley LLP Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3

0) 1907A e