354 P.3d 1282 (Nev. 2015), 67136, Bergenfield v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
|Citation:||354 P.3d 1282, 131 Nev.Adv.Op. 68|
|Opinion Judge:||GIBBONS, J.|
|Party Name:||MARCIA M. BERGENFIELD, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND LAWRENCE BERGENFIELD, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellants, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Respondent|
|Attorney:||Hafter Law and Jacob L. Hafter, Las Vegas, for Appellants. Akerman LLP and Ariel E. Stern and William S. Habdas, Las Vegas, for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||BEFORE HARDESTY, C.J., SAITTA and GIBBONS, JJ. We concur: Hardesty, C.J. Hardesty, Saitta, J. Saitta|
|Case Date:||September 10, 2015|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nevada|
Jurisdictional screening of an appeal from a district court order dismissing a complaint for lack of jurisdiction in a tort action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; . Joanna Kishner, Judge.
In this opinion, we determine whether a plaintiff can appeal from a district court order that dismisses the complaint but allows the plaintiff leave to amend. We conclude that an order of this nature is not a final, appealable judgment. If the plaintiff does not intend to amend its complaint, then it must provide the district court with written notice of its intent to stand on its complaint as drafted, so the district court can enter a final, appealable order. Here, the plaintiff did not provide the district court said notice, thus we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellants Marcia M. Bergenfield and Lawrence Bergenfield filed a complaint against respondent BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, asserting fraud and consumer fraud. BAC moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court granted BAC's motion to dismiss but allowed the Bergenfields leave to file an amended complaint. The Bergenfields then filed a first amended complaint, once again asserting fraud and consumer fraud. Again the district court dismissed it, allowing the Bergenfields leave to amend. However, instead of filing a second amended complaint, the Bergenfields appealed.1 This court issued an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Landreth v. Malik, 127 Nev. 175, 179, 251 P.3d 163, 166 (2011) (" [W]hether a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction can be raised by the parties at any time, or sua sponte by a court of review . . . ." (internal quotations omitted)).
This court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals authorized by statute or court rule. Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP