MISHLER VS. GOMEZ (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a clerk's order of dismissal predicated on 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)." When the appellant failed to include the required proof of service, the court issued a 14-day cure notice. Authority for dismissal on this ground rests on NRAP 3(a)(2), which provides that "[a]n 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 order also documents that a voluntary dismissal motion filed by the appellant on March 6, 2026, was stricken on March 10, 2026, for noncompliance with the court's rules, and no renewed motion was filed. The court therefore proceeded to involuntary dismissal for failure to cure the proof-of-service defect.

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 the filed notice include paperwork showing this service was completed. In this case, Mallory Kate Mishler filed an appeal but did not include that proof-of-service paperwork. On the day the appeal was docketed - March 3, 2026 - the Nevada Supreme Court sent her a notice giving her 14 days to fix the problem and submit the missing proof of service. The notice warned her that if she did not do so, her appeal could be thrown out. She did not submit the required document within the deadline. The order also notes that the appellant filed a motion on March 6, 2026, asking to voluntarily dismiss the appeal herself, but the court struck that motion on March 10, 2026, because it did not comply with the court's rules. She never filed a corrected version of that motion. With no proof of service filed and no proper voluntary-dismissal motion on file, the court dismissed the appeal.