BAKER VS. THOMPSON (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a clerk-level dismissal under NRAP 3 for failure to perfect the appeal by filing the required proof of service. NRAP 3(d)(1) requires that a notice of appeal be served on all parties to the district court action and "contain an acknowledgment of service or proof of service that conforms to the requirements of [NRAP] 25(d)." NRAP 3(a)(2) provides that an appellant's failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal "but is ground only for the court to act as it deems appropriate, including dismissing the appeal." The court issued a notice on November 4, 2025, directing compliance within 14 days; when no response was received, it issued a further order on December 5, 2025, again directing compliance within 14 days and cautioning that noncompliance would result in dismissal. Appellant did not comply with either directive, and the court exercised its NRAP 3(a)(2) discretion to dismiss.

In plain language

When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the rules require that the notice of appeal be served on the other parties in the case, and that proof of that service be filed with the court. In this case, Angelica Baker filed a notice of appeal, but she did not include proof that she had served the other side. The Nevada Supreme Court notified her of the problem on November 4, 2025, and gave her 14 days to provide the missing proof of service, warning that the appeal could be dismissed if she did not. When she did not respond, the court issued a second order on December 5, 2025, again giving her 14 days and again warning of dismissal. She still did not respond. Because the appellant did not comply with either directive, the court dismissed the appeal. The order does not address the merits of the underlying dispute between Baker and Thompson.