Vasquez-Montano Vs. Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., Llc

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 9, 2021
Docket82687
StatusPublished

This text of Vasquez-Montano Vs. Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., Llc (Vasquez-Montano Vs. Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., Llc) 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
Vasquez-Montano Vs. Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., Llc, (Neb. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MINERVA VASQUEZ-MONTANO, AN No. 82687 INDIVIDUAL; AND GIOVANNI JIMENEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellants, FILE vs. SEP 0 9 2021 CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS EUZAM I:A. BROWN PACIFIC, LLC, CLE OF PRE:vi Res ondent. EY DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Egan K. Walker, Judge. Initial review of the docketing statement and documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect. It appeared that appellants may not be aggrieved by the challenged order such that they have standing to appeal. See NRAP 3A(a) (allowing an appeal to be filed by an aggrieved party). "A party is 'aggrieved within the meaning of NRAP 3A(a) when either a personal right or right of property is adversely and substantially affected by a district court's ruling." Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Appellants' docketing statement indicated that the issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by dismissing the action without ruling on a pending issue regarding sanctions. Respondent moved the district court to dismiss appellants' complaint and the civil action with prejudice. The motion to dismiss did not request that the pending sanctions SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(01 1947A leat Ar Zt- 2l3984 P.2d 750 (1999) (indicating that when a party stipulates to the entry of an order, that person cannot later attack the order as adversely affecting that party's rights). To the extent appellants challenge the district court's subsequent decision to take the sanctions issue off calendar or its failure to resolve the sanctions issue, that decision is not

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 2 subject to review in the context of the appeal from the order of dismissal. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'

arraguirre

J. Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. Egan K. Walker, District Judge Laurie A. Yott, Settlement Judge Coulter Harsh Law Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Lewis Brisbois Bisaard & Smith LLC/Reno Washoe District Court Clerk

'Respondent's request to sanction appellants for filing a frivolous appeal is denied.

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

Related

Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg
874 P.2d 729 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1994)
Vinci v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc.
984 P.2d 750 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vasquez-Montano Vs. Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., Llc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-montano-vs-cemex-constr-materials-pac-llc-nev-2021.