Pontikis v. Woodlands Cmty. Ass'n. ( 2015 )

 ORDER PARTL4LLY DISMISSING APPEAL
AND REINSTATING BRIEFING
These are consolidated appeals from (1) a district court
summary judgment in favor of respondent Coleman-Toll, LLC (Docket No.
65838), (2) a partial summary judgment in favor of the remaining
defendants (Docket No. 65895), (3) a judgment awarding costs in favor of
Coleman-Toll (Docket No. 65945), and (4) an order awarding attorney fees
in favor of Coleman-Toll (Docket No. 66514).
In their timely response to this court's order to show cause
why these appeals should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, which
pointed out that appellants' negligence claims against some of the
respondents remained pending below, appellants submitted a signed
district court order properly granting NRCP 54(b) certification as to the
three appealed orders involving Coleman-Toll. Although the submitted
NRCP 54(b) certification is not file-stamped, according to the district court
docket entries, that order was filed on December 30, 2014. Accordingly, it
appears that we have jurisdiction over the appeals in Docket Nos. 65838,
65945, and 66514, NRAP 3A(b)(1); NRAP 4(a)(6), and those appeals may
proceed. Appellants shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file
and serve the opening brief and appendix. Thereafter, briefing shall
proceed in accordance with NRAP 31(a)(1).
With respect to the partial summary judgment in favor of the
other respondents, which was appealed in Docket No. 65895, however, the
district court refused to certify that order as final under NRCP 54(b).
Although appellants urge this court to consider the partial summary
judgment anyway based on its disposal of some of the claims, NRCP 54(b)
was amended effective in 2005 and no longer allows for certified finality
based on the resolution of fewer than all claims when that resolution does
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(CO 1941A OD
W1120iegfenteati"ItetteSda.
not completely removed a party from the action. As a result, regardless of
whether the nature of the summary judgment claims is separate from the
nature of the pending claim for negligence, a final judgment has not been
entered, as respondents point out,' and the partial summary judgment
cannot be certified as such. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction, NRAP
3A(b)(1); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000),
and we dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 65895.
It is so ORDERED.
J.
Saitta
, J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
Stephen E. Haberfeld, Settlement Judge
Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders
Maupin, Cox & LeGoy
Atkin Winner & Sherrod
Brown, Bonn & Friedman, LLP
Emerson & Manke, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Respondents' unopposed January 15, 2015, motion for an extension
of time to file a reply is granted; the clerk of this court shall file the reply
provisionally received in this court that same day.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
101 1947T Lt-IPOD