IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CHARLES DANIELS, DIRECTOR, No. 82372
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; AND THE STATE OF
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
MEL
CORRECTIONS, MAY 1 2021
.
Appellants,
ELD-AR A. BROWN
vs. OF E COUI:a
MONIQUE KARIEN BORK, DEPUTY CLERK
Res • ondent.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from an order imposing costs as a sanction for
appellants failure to comply with the district court's order denying
appellant's motion to dismiss and granting respondent's petition for a writ
of mandamus. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd
Russell, Judge.
Respondent filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel
appellants to produce public records. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss.
On August 21, 2020, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and
directed appellants to comply fully with respondent's public records request
within 30 days. When appellants failed to produce the records as directed,
respondents filed a motion for sanctions. On December 14, 2020, the district
court granted the motion for sanctions, imposed sanctions, and directed
appellants to inform the district court of any public record penalties
incurred within the last 10 years pursuant to NRS 239.340(1). Appellants
appeal from the order imposing sanctions.
Because no statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an
order that solely concerns contempt, this court directed appellants to show
SUPREME COURT cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See
Of
NEVADA
(0) I947A miSDED
"
Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n,
(2000) (recognizing that a contempt order entered in an ancillary
proceeding is not appealable). Appellants have responded and argue that
because the August 21, 2020, order did not expressly state that it granted
the petition for writ of mandamus, the order imposing the sanctions is the
final, appealable order. Respondent has filed a reply.
"[A] final, appealable judgment is 'one that disposes of the
issues presented in the case . . . and leaves nothing for the future
consideration of the court"' except postjudgment issues such as attorney fees
and costs. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg,
(1961)).
In determining whether a judgment is final this court looks to what the
order does rather than what it is called, and the effect of the order is
determinative of this issue. See Valley Bank of Nev.,
, 395 n.1
(1994) ('It is the substance of an order, rather than its caption, which is
determinative of whether the order is appealable.") Here the order denying
the motion to dismiss expressly directed appellants to perform the specific
acts demanded in the petition, thereby effectively granting the petition.
There were no substantive issues left to the court's consideration.
Accordingly, the order denying the motion to dismiss serves as the final
order, and could have been appealed directly. A contempt order that is
ancillary to another proceeding is not independently appealable.
(2013) (This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when
the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule). Appellants notice of
appeal was filed well after the expiration of the 30 days permitted by NRAP
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
401 PAM Map
2
4 and cannot be construed as challenging the August 21, 2020, order. This
court lacks jurisdiction, and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.
J.
Cadish
J.
Herndon
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
David Wasick, Settlement Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Attorney General/Las Vegas
Federal Public Defender/Las Vegas
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A csf,Wc.
3
••••-•
