STEVENS VS. STEVENS (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an order of dismissal for failure to prosecute following counsel's withdrawal. After granting appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw on June 27, 2025, the court directed appellant within 30 days to retain new counsel and have new counsel file a notice of appearance, or alternatively to advise the court that he would proceed pro se. The order warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal. Appellant did not respond. The court issued a follow-up order on August 12, 2025, shortening the response window to 14 days and reiterating the dismissal warning. Appellant again failed to comply or otherwise communicate with the court. Treating the lack of response as abandonment of the appeal, the court dismissed it. The order does not reach the merits of the district court's denial of NRCP 60(a) relief.

In plain language

This is a short procedural order ending an appeal in a family-law matter. Robert Stevens had appealed a decision from the Clark County district court that denied his request to correct a prior order under a procedural rule (NRCP 60(a), which allows courts to fix clerical mistakes in judgments). While the appeal was pending in the Nevada Supreme Court, Mr. Stevens's attorney was permitted to withdraw on June 27, 2025. The court told Mr. Stevens he had 30 days either to hire a new attorney or to let the court know he would represent himself. He did not respond. The court gave him another chance on August 12, 2025, this time with a 14-day deadline, and warned him again that the appeal could be dismissed if he did not comply. He still did not respond or contact the court. Because Mr. Stevens did not respond to either order, the Nevada Supreme Court concluded that he had abandoned the appeal and dismissed it. The order does not address the merits of the underlying district court ruling.