"arguably superfluous" judgment is not appealable, and NRAP 3A(b)(1)
(final judgment) and (8) (special order after final judgment) allow for this
appeal.
But we have repeatedly held that appealability does not
depend on whether a written decision is labeled order or judgment but
rather on what the decision does. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 427,
996 P.2d 416, 418 (2000) (citing NRCP 54(a) and several prior decisions).
Here, both July orders were entered after the final judgment and awarded
amounts to respondent for costs and attorney fees, and thus, they were
appealable as special orders after final judgment. NRAP 3A(b)(8); Lee,
116 Nev. at 426, 996 P.2d at 417. Additionally, in a recent opinion, this
court confirmed that superfluous judgments, or ones that merely repeat
the contents of previously entered orders, are not appealable. Campos-
Garcia v. Johnson, 130 Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 64, August 7,
2014). Here, the August 18 judgment merely repeated the contents of the
July 3 and 23 orders. Accordingly, it was superfluous, and we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal. Thus, we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
Pitiem J.
Pickering
, J
Parragui
, J.
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A eff,
cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas
Adams Law Group
Brown Brown & Premsrirut
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e