PHILOSTIN VS. PELLUMBAJ (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a procedural dismissal of a pro se appeal from a final child custody order. The court invoked NRAP 14 (docketing statement) and NRAP 9(a) (transcript request) as the bases for the filings the appellant was required to submit. After the appellant failed to comply with the January 10, 2025, notice setting initial deadlines, the court issued a follow-up order on February 12, 2025, extending the deadline to February 26, 2025, and expressly cautioning that noncompliance could result in dismissal. The appellant did not file the documents and did not communicate with the court. The court treated the inaction as abandonment and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

In plain language

A father, Steve Philostin, tried to appeal a Clark County family court ruling that decided custody of his child. He filed his appeal without a lawyer. When someone files an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court, the court requires certain paperwork early in the process - in particular, a "docketing statement" (a form that tells the court basic information about the case) and either a request for trial transcripts or a written statement that no transcripts will be requested. On January 10, 2025, the court told Philostin to file these documents within set deadlines. He did not. On February 12, 2025, the court gave him a second chance, setting a new deadline of February 26, 2025, and warning that if he again failed to comply, his appeal could be dismissed. He again did not file the documents and did not contact the court at all. Concluding that Philostin had abandoned his appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed it. That means the family court's custody order stands and the appeal is over.