Opinion
No. 84065
01-28-2022
Wilbert Roy HOLMES, Appellant, v. Ernest MILLER; and Capucine Yolanda Holmes, Respondents.
Wilbert Roy Holmes Ernest Miller Heaton Fontano, Ltd.
Wilbert Roy Holmes
Ernest Miller
Heaton Fontano, Ltd.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Review of the docketing statement and documents before this court reveals a jurisdictional defect: the challenged order is not substantively appealable. Although appellant indicates that the appeal is from a postjudgment order, in fact, no final judgment has yet been entered. See NRAP 3A(b)(8). Claims against defendant and respondent Ernest Miller remain pending in the district court. Although the district court docket entries indicate that appellant has filed defaults and motions for default judgment against Miller, no default judgment has been entered. A default, unlike a default judgment, does not fully resolve any claims. See generally Estate of Lomastro v. American Family Ins. Grp., 124 Nev. 1060, 1068, 195 P.3d 339, 345 (2008) (recognizing the distinction between a default and a default judgment). In the absence of a final judgment, there can be no special order after final judgment. NRAP 3A(b)(8) ; see Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction, and therefore
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.