Navarette v. RWBB Management Ltd., 111519 NVSC, 76400

Docket Nº:76400
Party Name:HUGO NAVARETTE, Appellant, v. RWBB MANAGEMENT LTD., D/B/A RESORTS WORLD BIMINI BAHAMAS CASINO, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Gibbons, J., Silver, J., Douglas, Sr. J. Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge Robert F. Saint-Aubin, Settlement Judge
Case Date:November 15, 2019
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

HUGO NAVARETTE, Appellant,

v.

RWBB MANAGEMENT LTD., D/B/A RESORTS WORLD BIMINI BAHAMAS CASINO, Respondent.

No. 76400

Supreme Court of Nevada

November 15, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a post-judgment award of attorney fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge.1

Appellant contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying matter and contends that the summary judgment entered in respondent's favor must be reversed. Appellant, however, did not timely appeal the final judgment entered on April 2, 2018, so we lack jurisdiction to review the final judgment. See NRAP 4(a)(1) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days from when notice of entry of the written order is served); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) ("[A] final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs."); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 688, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) ("[T]he proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional."). Although the district court's June 15, 2018, award of attorney fees and costs was labeled as an "amended judgment," that award did not "'disturb[ ] or revise[ ] legal rights and obligations which the prior judgment had plainly and properly settled with finality.'" Campos-Garcia v. Johnson, 130 Nev. 610, 612, 331 P.3d 890, 891 (2014) (quoting Morrell v. Edwards, 98 Nev. 91, 92, 640 P.2d 1322, 1324 (1982)). Accordingly, that award was superfluous with respect to the previously entered final judgment and could not form a basis for challenging on appeal the matters previously adjudicated in the final judgment. Id. Moreover, i because appellant has not coherently argued that the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP