Wiman Vs. Refaely

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHERI RENE WIMAN, No. 82763 Appellant, vs. FILED COTY REFAELY, Respondent. _JUL 2021

CLE r ' ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL _ .. .

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; David M. Jones, Judge.

Appellant challenges an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement and addressing related issues, but not dismissing the underlying complaint. Because it appeared that this court lacked jurisdiction, see Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 301 P.3d 850 (2013) (an order granting a motion to enforce a settlement agreement is not a final judgment where it does not enter judgment in favor of a party or otherwise resolve the pending claims), this court directed appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. In response, appellant asserts that the challenged order is appealable as a final judgment, and provides this court with an order certifying the order as final pursuant to NRCP 54(b).

The challenged order does not resolve the claims asserted in the • istrict court proceedings and expressly denies appellant's "Countermotion o Enforce the Settlement Agreement and to Dismiss Case with Prejudice." t is thus not appealable as a final judgment. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 ev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment); Valley ank of Nev., 110 Nev. at 446, 874 P.2d at 733-34 (concluding that the •istrict court's order approving a settlement agreement was not a final,

cvocii

ppealable judgment because the parties claims were not dismissed or therwise resolved). In addition, the order does not appear amenable to NRCP 54(b)

ertification because the district court did not rnake an express letertnination that there is no just reason for delay. Aldabe v. Evans, 83 Vev. 135, 425 P.2d 598 (1967). And it appears that the claims asserted in ;he action are so closely related that this court must necessarily decide ssues pending below in order to decide the issues appealed. Maliin v.

Partners Insurance Exchange, 106 Nev. 606, 797 P.2d 978 (1990); Hallicrafters Co. u. Moore, 102 Nev. 526, 728 P.2d 441 (1986). Reviewing he matter at this stage of the proceedings could result in piecemeal itigation, defeating the purpose of NRCP 54(b). Accordingly, this court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction. An appeal may be taken from a final judgment resolving the claims asserted below. This court ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

, C.J. Hardesty

Ai4CA4-.0 Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge Ara H. Shirinian, Settlement Judge Law Office of S. Don Bennion Michael S. Strange & Associates, LLC Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

1,I7A