PATHOUMPHANH VS. GODENZI (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reiterated the threshold jurisdictional principle that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," quoting Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). The challenged order - an interlocutory order compelling NRCP 16.205 compliance and awarding attorney fees in an amount to be determined - is not made appealable by any statute or court rule. The court therefore lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The opinion does not address whether the order could be reviewed by extraordinary writ or whether a later final judgment would permit review of the interlocutory ruling.

In plain language

A party in a Washoe County family-court case tried to appeal a mid-case order. That order required compliance with a discovery rule (NRCP 16.205, which governs disclosures in family-law matters) and said the other side would get attorney fees, with the dollar amount to be set later. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits. Instead, it explained that it can only hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically allows. Because no statute or rule permits an appeal from the kind of mid-case order at issue here, the court concluded it had no power (no jurisdiction) to consider the appeal and dismissed it.