IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
GRADY EDWARD BYRD, No. 81198
Appellant,
vs.
CATERINA ANGELA BYRD, PILE
Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from district court orders awarding attorney
fees. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Rhonda Kay Forsberg,
Judge.
When this court's initial review of the docketing statement and
documents before this court revealed a potential jurisdictional defect, this
court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, it appeared that the notice
of appeal was untimely filed.
Notice of entry of the challenged orders was served
electronically on March 18 and 27, 2020, respectively. Thus, the notices of
appeal were due to be filed in the district court by April 17 and 27, 2020,
respectively. See NRAP 4(a)(1); NRAP 26(a)(1)(C); NRCP 6(a)(1)(C).
However, appellant did not file the notice of appeal in the district court until
May 14, 2020, well past the deadline. Appellant suggested in his docketing
statement that the notice of appeal is timely pursuant to the governor's
Declaration of Emergency Directive 009 (Revised). Section 2 of that
directive states that la]ny specific time limit set by state statute or
regulation for the commencement of any legal action is hereby tolled from
[April 1, 2020] until 30 days from the date the state of emergency declared
vz_to- 3012-Y
on March 12, 2020 is terminated." This court noted that the time limitation
to file a notice of appeal is not established by state statute or regulation, but
by court rule. Thus, the directive did not appear to apply to the time to file
a notice of appeal.
In response to the order to show cause, appellant concedes that
the notice of appeal was untimely filed. However, appellant notes that the
challenged orders were entered "immediately following the eruption of the
pandemic and the executive orders issues by Governor Sisolak essentially
closing down business." He asserts that because of the emergency order and
an "initial lack of clarity as to who could continue to operate during the
shutdown," he did not immediately receive notice of entry of the orders and
did not correctly calendar the response dates. Appellant also represents
that the district courts "adopted and applied [directive 009] to the existing
court rules." Appellant suggests that this court "adopt the suspension of
timing rules that was uniformly adopted in the district court."
Respondent replies that appellant was actively involved in the
litigation in this matter during the relevant time frame and does not
demonstrate that he was prevented frorn timely filing the notice of appeal.
Respondent contends that the governor's Declaration of Emergency
Directive 009 (Revised) does not affect the time to file a notice of appeal and
the Eighth Judicial District Court's Administrative order does not apply to
jurisdictional requirements.
Appellant's notice of appeal was untimely filed. See NRAP
4(a)(1). The Declaration of Emergency Directive 009 (Revised) does not
apply to deadlines established by this court's rules. And this court is unable
to extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal. NRAP 26(b)(1)(A) C[T]he
court may not extend the time to file a notice of appeal except as provided
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
101 I947A aeto 2
in Rule 4(c)."). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction, see Healy v.
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft,
(1987),
and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
•
Parraguirre
, J.
Hardesty Cadish
cc: Hon. Rhonda Kay Forsberg, District Judge
Mills & Anderson Law Group
Webster & Associates
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A ac4lbs, 3
