Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court held that an appeal must be taken from an appealable order when it is first entered. An amended judgment that merely repeats an earlier judgment and an independently appealable attorney-fee and cost order is superfluous and cannot extend the time for appeal; the appeal was dismissed in part.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the original judgment was the final, appealable judgment when it resolved all issues other than attorney fees and costs.
- Whether the separate post-judgment order awarding attorney fees and costs was independently appealable.
- Whether an amended judgment that merely repeats the original judgment and incorporates the fee-and-costs award is appealable.
- Whether the appellant's amended notice of appeal was timely as to the attorney-fees-and-costs order.
Holdings
- The appealability of an order or judgment depends on what it actually does, not what it is called.
- An order awarding attorney fees and costs after entry of a final judgment is independently appealable as a special order after final judgment.
- An amended judgment is appealable only when it disturbs or revises legal rights and obligations that the prior judgment plainly and properly settled with finality.
- The amended notice of appeal was untimely as to the attorney-fees-and-costs order because the appellant did not appeal from that independently appealable order within the prescribed time.
Key quotations
“We emphasize that an appeal must be taken from an appealable order when first entered; superfluous or duplicative orders and judgments—those filed after an appealable order has been entered that do nothing more than repeat the contents of that order—are not appealable and, generally, should not be rendered.” (at 1)
“In Morrell v. Edwards, we explained that an appeal is properly taken from an amended judgment only when the amendment "disturbEs] or revise[s] legal rights and obligations which the prior judgment had plainly and properly settled with finality."” (at 3)
Factual background
A jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in a tort action. The district court entered judgment against Eristeo Campos-Garcia resolving the parties' rights and liabilities, except for attorney fees and costs. The court later awarded attorney fees and costs by separate order and then entered an amended judgment incorporating that award without altering the original judgment or the fee-and-costs order.
Procedural history
After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the district court entered judgment resolving all issues except attorney fees and costs. Campos-Garcia timely appealed from that judgment. The district court later entered an independently appealable order awarding attorney fees and costs, but Campos-Garcia did not timely appeal from that order. The court then entered an amended judgment incorporating the award without changing the parties' legal rights or obligations, and Campos-Garcia filed an amended notice of appeal identifying that amended judgment. The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as to the superfluous amended judgment and the related fees and costs award, while reinstating briefing on the original final judgment in a separate order.