LUCIANO VS. LUCIANO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review under NRAP 3(g) and identified three independent defects. First, the May 11, 2023, order was already the subject of a pending appeal in Docket No. 86782; a second appeal from the same order is not permitted. Second, assuming the May 1, 2023, order (notice of entry filed May 3, 2023) and the May 11, 2023, order (notice of entry filed May 12, 2023) were appealable, the November 30, 2023, notice of appeal was untimely under NRAP 4(a)(1) and NRAP 26(c). Citing Healy v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 103 Nev. 329, 331, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987), the court reiterated that an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. Third, the remaining challenged orders are not within the categories of appealable orders enumerated in NRAP 3A(b). Citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), the court emphasized that it may consider only those appeals authorized by statute or court rule. Finding no jurisdictional basis, the court dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

Amy Luciano tried to appeal several orders from her family-court case to the Nevada Supreme Court without an attorney. Before the Supreme Court can decide whether a lower court got something right or wrong, it first has to confirm that it has the legal authority - called jurisdiction - to hear the appeal at all. Here, the court found it did not. There were three problems. First, one of the orders Luciano wanted to challenge - the order dated May 11, 2023 - was already being appealed in a separate case (Docket No. 86782). A party cannot file a second appeal from the same order. Second, to the extent the May 1, 2023, and May 11, 2023, orders could be appealed, Luciano's notice of appeal was filed on November 30, 2023, which was well past the 30-day deadline that runs from the date written notice of entry of the order is served. A late notice of appeal does not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction. Third, the rest of the orders she wanted to challenge are not the kind of orders that Nevada law allows to be appealed in the first place. Because of these jurisdictional problems, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without reaching the substance of any of Luciano's complaints about the lower court rulings.