Reed v. Reed

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: January 28, 2022
• Docket: 82575
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JEFFREY ALLEN REED, No. 82575 Appellant, vs. ALECIA ANN REED, N/K/A ALECIA FILE ANN DRAPER; AND ALECIA ANN DRAPER, AS CONSERVATOR OF JAN 2 8 2022 EMILY REED, A. DROWN PR C U Res • ondents. DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is an appeal frorn a postjudgment order setting child support and reducing child support arrears to judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., Judge. Respondent Alecia Ann Reed has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and for sanctions based on appellant's repeated failures to adhere to this court's rules of procedure and appellant's failure to submit an appropriate appendix. The motion was served electronically on appellant's counsel on December 20, 2021. To date, appellant has not responded to the motion. This appeal was docketed on March 3, 2021. Appellant failed to timely file the docketing statement. When appellant did finally submit the docketing statement for filing, it was rejected because it did not contain the required documents. Thereafter, appellant filed a compliant docketing SUPREME COURT OF statement. Appellant has twice attempted to file a transcript request form NEVADA

( 0) 1947A 2.2-0 and both times, the submitted document was rejected as nonconforming. To date, appellant has failed to file a transcript request form as required by NRAP 9. Appellant obtained a 90-day extension of time to file the opening brief and appendix and requested a second 45-day extension, which this court denied for lack of cause. Subsequently, appellant filed the opening brief and appendix and, upon review of the appendix, this court confirms that the problems listed by respondent do create difficulties in referring to the appendix. The appendix contains non-conforming copies of trial exhibits, the bates-stamp numbers are inconsistent with the trial court record and make cross-referencing the citations difficult, certain documents that are relevant to the appeal are not included, the index of documents does not conform to the actual documents, and citations in the brief do not correlate with documents in the appendix. The failure of a party to comply with this court's orders and rules of procedure deprives the parties of a prompt resolution of their case. See Dougan v. Gustaveson, 108 Nev. 517, 523, 835 P.2d 795, 799 (1992) (recognizing this court's commitment to the proposition that "justice delayed is justice denied"). Consequently, this court has declared in the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure that the failure to pay the filing fee, or to file a case appeal statement, docketing statement, transcript request form, transcripts, or briefs in a timely manner, may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of an appeal. See NRAP 3(a); NRAP 9(a)(3); NRAP 13(b); NRAP 14(c). Additionally, appellant has failed to respond in any way to respondent's allegations. This court has generally recognized that failure to oppose a motion may constitute a concession that the motion is meritorious. See Spencer v. Klementi, 136

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 441gEkl. Nev., Adv. Op. 35, 466 P.3d 1241, 1249 (2020). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted, and this court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'

„Po , J. Haraesty

A14/.7.4.4 J. Stiglich Herndon

cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group La Luzerne Law Brennan Law Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

'Respondent's request for additional sanctions is denied. Respondent's motion for an extension of time to file the answering brief is granted. The answering brief, errata, and appendix were filed on January SUPREME COURT 10 and 11, 2022. OF NEVADA

(0) I947A