IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
SPANISH HEIGHTS ACQUISITION No. 82868
COMPANY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
LIAl3ILITY COMPANY; AND SJC
VENTURES HOLDING COMPANY,
LLC, D/B/A SJC VENTURES, LLC, A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY,
FILED
Appellants, JUN 0 6 2022
vs.
ROWN
CBC PARTNERS I, LLC, A FOREIGN cLERissFAUPAReME COURT
BY "`")
LIMITED LJABILITY COMPANY; CBC OiPUTY CLERK -r
PARTNERS, LLC, A FOREIGN
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 5148
SPANISH HEIGHTS, LLC, A NEVADA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
DACIA LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY,
Respondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court order resolving a motion
for a preliminary injunction in an action for declaratory relief and breach of
contract relating to real property. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
County; Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Judge.
In the underlying action, appellants filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit respondents from proceeding on
any future notice of default and notice of breach and election to sell under
deed of trust, and from engaging in foreclosure activity and/or attempting
to foreclose on the subject property. The parties subsequently entered into
a stipulation agreeing that the district court would resolve five legal issues
at the "triar on the preliminary injunction motion. After the district court
entered the challenged order on the preliminary injunction motion and the
five legal issues, the parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein
appellants agreed that if payments were not made in accordance with the
terms of the settlement, respondents could resume their foreclosure of the
property. Payments were not made, and the property was foreclosed upon.
Respondents now move to dismiss this appeal as moot. They
contend there is no longer a justiciable controversy regarding the
preliminary injunction order because of the settlement and subsequent
foreclosure. Appellants do not dispute that the parties entered into a
settlement, the settlement was not successful, and the subject property was
foreclosed. They note that there has been no dismissal of the underlying
action and a trial is upcoming on the remaining claims. Appellants assert
that respondents seek to have the challenged order submitted to the jury
and the jury instructed to follow the findings of fact and co7clusions of law
therein. Therefore, appellants assert, there is a live justiciable controversy
as the issues raised in this appeal affect the issues remaining in the district
court.
This court agrees that appellants appeal from the order
resolving its preliminary injunction motion has been rendered moot by the
foreclosure. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d
572, 574 (2010) (a case presenting a live controversy at its beginning may
be rendered moot by subsequent events). There is no effective relief this
court can grant appellants with respect to the foreclosure. See id.
Accordingly, the motion is granted and this appeal is dismissed.' To the
extent appellants wish to challenge any findings of fact and conclusions of
'Given this dismissal, this court takes no action on respondents'
motion for an extension of time to file the answering brief.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 194U
2
law made within the order, those findings of fact and conclusion of law are
not independently appealable. See Ford v. Showboat Operating Co., 110
Nev. 752, 756, 877 P.2d 546, 549 (1994). But appellants may challenge them
in the context of any appeal from the final judgment in the underlying
matter, if appellants are aggrieved by that judgment. See NRAP 3A(b)(1).
It is so ORDERED.
J.
Hardesty
..444tkg J.
Stiglich Herndon
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court
Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 11
Charles K. Hauser, Settlement Judge
Maier Gutierrez & Associates
Mushkin & Coppedge
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OP
NEVADA
(0) I947A dileige•
3