Zogheib v. Turino

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 10, 2017
Docket72645
StatusUnpublished

This text of Zogheib v. Turino (Zogheib v. Turino) 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
Zogheib v. Turino, (Neb. 2017).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JIHAD ANTHONY ZOGHEIB, No. 72645 Appellant, vs. JEFFREY TURINO, AN INDIVIDUAL; FILED LARRY GRENWALD, AN INDIVIDUAL; STEVE SAUM, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND JUL 1 0 2017 DONNA WALKER-ZOGHEIB, AN INDIVIDUAL, Respondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order granting respondent Donna Walker-Zogheib's motion to withdraw a motion for a protective order and to withdraw the complaint; denying a motion to have appellant declared a vexatious litigant, but ordering appellant to proceed only through his counsel; prohibiting appellant from continuing to contact the other parties to the action; and denying appellant's motion for a temporary protective order against respondents Jeffrey Turino and Larry Grenwald. Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye County; Robert W. Lane, Judge. Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, with respect to the portion of the order granting Ms. Walker-Zogheib's motions to withdraw the application for a temporary protective order and to withdraw the complaint, and the portion of the order denying the motion to designate appellant a vexatious litigant, it appears that appellant is not an aggrieved party with standing to appeal. See NRAP 3A(a); Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 874 P.2d 729 (1994). With respect to the remaining portions of the order, it appears that the order is not SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .4)W substantively appealable. See NEAP 3A(b). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). No statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order directing that a party proceed through his counsel, prohibiting appellant from continuing to contact parties to the action, or from an order denying a motion for a temporary protective order. See NRAP 3A(b). Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED 1

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Jihad Anthony Zogheib Mountain West Lawyers Jeffrey Turino Larry Grenwald Law Office of Lisa Chamlee, Ltd. Nye County Clerk

We take no action on appellant's notice to correct designation of caption, filed April 3, 2017.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 2

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

Related

TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
678 P.2d 1152 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1984)
Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg
874 P.2d 729 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zogheib v. Turino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zogheib-v-turino-nev-2017.