Comfort Residential Partners v. Nova Casualty Co.

 After the notice of appeal was filed, the district court entered
an order in the failure-to-defend action granting summary judgment in
favor of one of the remaining defendants on the ground that the default
judgment entered against Sun Rockeries was invalid. Comfort Residential
did not appeal that judgment, and Nova subsequently filed the instant
motion to dismiss this appeal as moot in light of the district court's order
regarding the default judgment. Nova's motion is based on the premise
that, even if this court were to conclude that Nova had a duty to defend
Sun Rockeries, Comfort Residential would not be entitled to recover a
judgment on its claim against Nova, as the underlying default judgment
has been determined to be invalid.
In opposing the motion to dismiss, Comfort Residential
contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order as to
the default judgment in light of the pending appeal. The matter before
this court on appeal, however, concerns whether Nova had a duty to
defend Sun Rockeries, and if so, whether the amount of the default
judgment is the proper measure of damages for its failure to do so. While
the district court's order concluding that the default judgment was invalid
may have rendered this appeal moot by negating the need to answer the
questions before this court, it did not in any way affect the analysis of the
merits of those questions. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction to enter
the order. See Mack-Manley v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849, 855, 138 P.3d 525,
529-30 (2006) (explaining that "when an appeal is perfected, the district
court is divested of jurisdiction to revisit issues that are pending before
this court, [but] retains jurisdiction to enter orders on matters that are
collateral to and independent from the appealed order, i.e., matters that in
no way affect the appeal's merits"). Beyond its jurisdictional argument,

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
 Comfort Residential does not dispute that the district court's order
regarding the default judgment rendered this appeal moot.
Accordingly, we conclude that dismissal is appropriate, see
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. „ 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010)
(explaining that "Whis court's duty is not to render advisory opinions but,
rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment," and
that "even though a case may present a live controversy at its beginning,
subsequent events may render the case moot"), and we therefore
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'

-
Douglas

Saitta

'Having considered respondent's May 2, 2013, notice of permission
to appear under SCR 42, we conclude that no action need be taken as to
that document. We also disapprove as moot the parties' May 2, 2013,
stipulation for extension of time to file the answering brief. The clerk of
this court shall return, unfiled, respondent's answering brief, provisionally
received on June 27, 2013.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

3
(0) 1947A
 cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
Paul F. Hamilton, Settlement Judge
Greene & Markley, P.C.
Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low
Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, PC
Jenkins & Carter
Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A