GONZALEZ VS. ROM (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal under NRAP 3(a)(2), which 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 defect identified was noncompliance with NRAP 3(d)(1), which 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)." After the court's August 29, 2024 notice giving appellant 14 days to cure, no proof of service was filed, and the court exercised its discretion to dismiss.

In plain language

This is a very short procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of the underlying child custody dispute. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the rules require them to serve (formally deliver) a copy of the notice of appeal on the other parties and to file paperwork showing they did so. Kristopher Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2024, but did not include that proof-of-service paperwork. The Supreme Court Clerk sent him a notice the same day telling him he had 14 days to fix the problem and warning that, if he did not, the appeal could be dismissed. He did not file the missing proof of service. Because of that, the court dismissed the appeal. The order does not address any of the underlying child custody issues between Gonzalez and Cera Rom.