KALOUSTIAN VS. MONTANO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction based on a premature notice of appeal. Applying NRAP 4(a)(4) and AA Primo Builders LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 585, 245 P.3d 1190, 1195 (2010), the court determined that a timely tolling motion - here, a motion for reconsideration of the challenged order - had been filed in the district court. The notice of appeal was filed after that tolling motion but before entry of a written order finally resolving it, and the motion remained pending at the time of this order. Citing NRAP 4(a)(6) ("A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of jurisdiction."), the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed. The order notes that appellant may file a new notice of appeal once the district court enters a written order finally resolving the motion for reconsideration.

In plain language

This is a short procedural order. Mr. Kaloustian tried to appeal a district court ruling in a custody case, but he filed his notice of appeal at the wrong time. After the district court issued the order he wanted to challenge, someone filed a timely motion asking the district court to reconsider that order. Under Nevada appellate rules, certain post-judgment motions like a motion for reconsideration can "toll" - that is, pause - the deadline to appeal until the district court rules on them in a written order. Mr. Kaloustian filed his notice of appeal after the reconsideration motion was filed but before the district court entered a written order resolving it. According to the Supreme Court, that motion was still pending in the district court at the time of this order. Because the appeal was filed too early, the Supreme Court concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear it and dismissed the appeal. The court noted in a footnote that Mr. Kaloustian may file a new notice of appeal once the district court enters a written order finally resolving the motion for reconsideration.