CRUZ VS. SAKALIS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an unpublished order dismissing an appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration in a child custody matter. After granting counsel's motion to withdraw on January 17, 2025, the court directed appellant within 30 days to retain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance, or advise the court he would proceed pro se, with a caution that noncompliance could result in dismissal. Appellant did not respond. On March 11, 2025, the court issued a second order with a 14-day compliance window and a renewed caution. Appellant again failed to comply or communicate with the court. Treating the lack of response as abandonment, the court dismissed the appeal. The order does not cite any statutes, rules, or case authority, and identifies no merits ruling on the underlying custody or reconsideration issues.

In plain language

This case involved a child custody dispute. After the family court denied Richard Cruz's request to reconsider its ruling, Cruz appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, his attorney asked to stop representing him, and the Supreme Court allowed the attorney to withdraw. When a party loses their lawyer during an appeal, they must either hire a new lawyer or tell the court they will represent themselves (proceed "pro se"). On January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court ordered Cruz to do one of those two things within 30 days, and warned him that failing to do so could cause his appeal to be thrown out. Cruz did not respond. The court gave him a second chance on March 11, 2025, allowing him 14 more days and repeating the warning. Cruz again did not respond. Because Cruz did not communicate with the court at all, the Supreme Court concluded that he had abandoned his appeal and dismissed it. That dismissal ends his appeal; the family court's underlying custody ruling stands.