477 P3D 367 - Gilman Vs. Toll

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LANCE GILMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 81583 ‘/
Appellant,
vs.
SAM TOLL, AN INDIVIDUAL,
Res ondent.
LANCE GILMAN, No. 81726
Appellant,
VS.
SAM TOLL,
Res • ondent.
LANCE GILMAN, No. 81874
Appellant,
vs. EILED
SAM TOLL,
DEC 1 6 2020
Res ondent.
A. BROM
UPREME COURT
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL CLERK

Docket No. 81583 is an appeal from an order granting a special
motion to dismiss under NRS 41.670. The order expressly directs appellant
to show cause why statutory damages pursuant to NRS 41.670(1)(b) should
not be awarded. Because it appeared that Docket No. 81583 is not a final,
appealable order, this court directed appellant to show cause why the
appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant has
responded and contends that the order should be considered final for
purposes of appeal under NRS 41.670 because it resolves the substantive
claims at issue between the parties. Appellant contends that the court's
direction to file briefs regarding statutory damages is merely addressed to
postjudgment matters such as attorney fees and costs. See Lee v. GNLV
Corp., 116 Nev, 424, 426-27,

996 P.2d 416, 417-18

 (2000) (noting that a final
                judgment is "one that disposes of all issues presented in the case, and leaves
SUPREME COURT   nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment
     OF
   NEVADA




                     .a., ;;,:44%:.%:•41-AVE          4,13."iltd14"47,   't           0'1E14,A .
                   issues such as attorney's fees and coste). Respondent has filed a reply and
                   argues that statutory damages are part of the judgment, not a postjudgrnent
                   matter.
                               As noted in the order to show cause, this court has held that
                   "[e]ven for appealable interlocutory orders, . . . , we have consistently
                   required that, for an appeal to be proper, the order must finally resolve the
                   particular issue." Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks,

127 Nev. 896, 900

266 P.3d 618, 620

                   (2011). This court concludes that the final, appealable order is the order
                   entered July 29, 2020, awarding the statutory darnages as a remedy for the
                   special motion to dismiss. The limited order granting the special motion to
                   disrniss may be challenged as an interlocutory order within the appeal from
                   the order awarding damages. See, e.g., Consol. Generator-Nevada, Inc. v.
                   Cummins Engine Co., Inc.,

114 Nev. 1304, 1312

971 P.2d 1251, 1256

 (1998).
                   The appeal in Docket No. 81583 is dismissed.
                               The briefing schedule is reinstated as follows. Appellant shall
                   have 14 days from the date of this order to file and serve the transcript
                   request forrn or certificate of no transcript request in Docket Nos. 81726 and
                   81874. NRAP 9(a). Appellant shall have 60 days from the date of this order
                   to file and serve a single opening brief and an appendix. Thereafter, briefing
                   shall proceed in accordance with NRAP 31(a)(1).
                               It is so ORDERED.




                        AI/4;J                                                           , J.
                   Stiglich

SUPREME COURT
      OF
    NEVADA


(0) 1947A agiga                                       2
             AMISSIggiiiee4FIANNIMakAaalitailSZCSIRM-c.                          iatkWyaig.• ,      ,-;,11saffi
                      cc:   Flangas Dalacas Law Group, Inc.
                            John L. Marshall
                            Luke A. Busby




SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA


(0) i947A    a4Ptr;                                   3
Ir;•;VIlitigeOMMININIKCILiAlaWdfigatilifiVIIMINIEWIENV 'idiVASIMENNEMEW W4-11161124,   .YiuYMISINE