Aleman v. Reyes

Gibbons

This is an appeal from a district court order regarding child support. On July 7, 2016, this court entered an order directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, while appellant's arguments on appeal went to the denial of her motion for child support arrears, the order she identified as denying that request and as the final judgment below only set child support going forward without addressing the arrearages issue. Our July 7 order further noted that the district court had only made an oral ruling on appellant's request for arrearages and that, to the extent she characterized the challenged order as a final judgment, that appeared to be inaccurate as the order left issues pertaining not only to arrearages, but also to past unreimbursed medical expenses and the federal tax dependency exemption, unresolved. Lastly, our July 7 order cautioned appellant that "failure to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction may result in the dismissal of this appeal."

While appellant subsequently responded to our show cause order, her response simply requested a 60-day extension of time to respond so that she could move the district court to enter an order resolving the issues identified in this court's show cause order. Thereafter, this court entered an order partially granting appellant's motion, which gave her 30 days to move the district court to enter an order resolving the issues still pending below and file a copy of the district court's resulting order with this court. In ruling on appellant's request, we observed that she had taken no action to obtain relief from the district court in the initial 30-plus days following the entry of the July 7 order and that appellant had provided no explanation with regard to her apparent failure to do so. Thus, we specifically explained that further extensions of time would only be granted based on extreme and unforeseeable circumstances, which would not include counsel's caseload, cf. Varnum v. Grady, 90 Nev. 374, 528 P.2d 1027 (1974), and cautioned appellant that failure to demonstrate our jurisdiction over her appeal may result in its dismissal.

Appellant's response was due in this court on October 19, 2016, but to date, appellant has failed to file this document or otherwise respond to this court's directive that appellant demonstrate our jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we therefore,

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons

/s/_________, J.

Tao

/s/_________, J.

Silver cc: Hon. Bryce C. Duckworth, District Judge, Family Court Division

David L. Mann

Jorge H. Reyes

Eighth District Court Clerk