Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada dismissed the appeal in Docket No. 85221 for failure to file a required docketing statement and referred appellant’s counsel to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation concerning potential professional-conduct violations. The court also made a $250 sanction payable and set the deadline for the opening brief and appendix in the consolidated appeal in Docket No. 84658.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal in Docket No. 85221 should be dismissed because appellant failed to file the required docketing statement despite repeated court directives and warnings.
- Whether counsel's failure to comply with appellate filing requirements warranted referral to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation.
- Whether the previously conditional $250 sanction against counsel should become payable.
Holdings
- An appeal may be dismissed when counsel fails to comply with repeated court notices and orders requiring the filing of a docketing statement, particularly after the court has warned that noncompliance may result in dismissal.
- When appellate counsel's repeated failure to comply with court orders appears to implicate the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, the Supreme Court may refer counsel to the State Bar of Nevada for investigation.
- A sanction conditionally imposed for failure to comply with appellate deadlines becomes payable when counsel fails to satisfy the conditions that would vacate it.
Key quotations
“This court has repeatedly stated that it expects all appeals to “be pursued in a manner meeting high standards of diligence, professionalism, and competence.”” (at 2)
“Mr. Stipp is “not at liberty to disobey notices, orders, or any other directives issued by this court.”” (at 2)
Factual background
Appellant's counsel failed to timely file a docketing statement in Docket No. 85221 despite multiple notices and an order reminding counsel of the deadline. Counsel also initially failed to submit the required transcript request documentation, although certificates of no transcript request were later filed. Counsel did not otherwise communicate with the Supreme Court concerning the overdue docketing statement.
Procedural history
The Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Judge Veronica Barisich, entered orders granting a special motion to dismiss and awarding attorney fees. During the consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court directed appellant to file a docketing statement and transcript-related documents. Although counsel filed certificates stating that no transcripts would be requested, counsel did not file the docketing statement for Docket No. 85221 or otherwise communicate with the court. The Supreme Court dismissed that appeal, referred counsel for investigation, and ordered payment of a $250 sanction; Docket No. 84658 remained pending subject to the filing of an opening brief and appendix.