IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
REDDY ICE CORPORATION; AND No. 82109
GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,
INC.,
Appellants,
FILED
VS. APR 0 7 2022
FRED GILL, A. BROWN
Res • ondent.
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion
for reconsideration, to alter judgment, and/or to amend findings. Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kerry Louise Earley, Judge.
When initial review of the docketing statement and documents
before this court revealed potential jurisdictional defects, this court ordered
appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. In particular, it appeared that an order denying a motion
for reconsideration, to alter judgment, and/or to amend findings is not
substantively appealable. See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire v. Mercer, 111 Nev.
318, 320 n.1, 890 P.2d 785, 787 n.1 (1995), .superseded on other grounds by
statute as stated in RTTC Commcns, LLC v. Saratoga Flier, Inc., 121 Nev.
34, 110 P.3d 24 (2005); Alvis v. State, 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980 (1983),
overruled on other grounds by AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126
Nev. 578, 245 P.3d 1190 (2010). In addition, to the extent the notice of
appeal is construed as an appeal from the underlying order granting in part
the petition for judicial review, see Uniroyal, 111 Nev. at 320 n.1, 890 P.2d
at 787 n.1, it appeared that the order is not substantively appealable
SUPREME COURT
because it remands for further substantive administrative proceedings, see
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 4WD
Ayala v. Caesars Palace, 119 Nev. 232, 71 P.3d 490 (2003), overruled on
other grounds by Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 194 P.3d
709 (2008).
In response, appellants contend that their motion for
reconsideration, to alter judgment, and/or to alter and/or amend findings
did not seek rehearing or re-review of substantive matters before the court.
They do not, however, offer any basis upon which the order is appealable.
Appellants also seem to assert that the underlying district court order is
appealable because it remanded to the appeals officer regarding an
ancillary issue" that is "not significant."
The order denying appellants motion for reconsideration, to
alter judgment, and/or to alter and/or amend findings is not substantively
appealable. See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire, 111 Nev. at 320 n.1, 890 P.2d at
787 n.1 (no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion to alter or
amend); Alvis, 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980 (an order denying a motion for
rehearing is not appealable).
This court could construe the notice of appeal as challenging the
underlying order granting in part the petition for review and remanding for
further proceedings. See Uniroyal, 111 Nev. at 320 n.1, 890 P.2d at 787 n.1.
However, where the underlying order remands for a new hearing before the
appeals officer to address whether respondent provided proper notice in
compliance with NRS 617.342 and NRS 617.346(2), and thus whether
respondent's claim for benefits should be accepted, the order remands for
further substantive proceedings and is not appealable. See, e.g., Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. v. O'Brien, 129 Nev. 679, 680-81, 310 P.3d 581, 582 (2013)
("[I]n the administrative context, a district court order remanding a matter
to an administrative agency is not an appealable order, unless the order
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 4/Pp
constitutes a final judgment on the merits and remands merely for
collateral tasks, such as calculating benefits found due."); Ayala, 119 Nev.
at 235, 71 P.3d at 492 (stating the general rule that a district court order
remanding to an administrative agency is not appealable unless the order
is a final judgment, and concluding that an order remanding to consider
evidence the administrative agency had previously failed to consider was
not a final judgment). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.'
Hardesty
Al;u2sCA-..0 J. , J.
Stiglich Hernd n
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court
Eighth Judicial District Court, Department 4
Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Kemp & Kemp
Eighth District Court Clerk
'This court's order to show cause suspended the deadlines to file
documents in this appeal. This court therefore takes no action on
appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a certificate of no
SUPREME Couar
OF transcript request.
NEVADA
(0) I947A 4080.