PHILLIPS VS. PHILLIPS (FAMILY)

In plain language

Todd Phillips tried to appeal a family-court order that labeled him a "vexatious litigant" - a designation courts use to restrict someone who has repeatedly filed problematic lawsuits or motions. He filed the appeal himself, without a lawyer. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits of whether the vexatious-litigant label was warranted. Instead, the court concluded it had no power to hear the appeal in the first place. Under Nevada appellate rules, only certain kinds of lower-court orders can be appealed, and a post-judgment order declaring someone a vexatious litigant is not on that list. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it dismissed the appeal.

Holdings

• -A post-judgment district court order declaring a party a vexatious litigant is not appealable pursuant to NRAP 3A(b) or any statute, and the Nevada Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from such an order.

Practitioner analysis

The court dismissed sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Citing NRAP 3A(b), the court held that a post-judgment vexatious litigant order is not independently appealable under the rule or any statute. The court relied on Peck v. Crouser, 129 Nev. 120, 124, 295 P.3d 586, 588 (2013), for the proposition that such orders fall outside the court's appellate jurisdiction. The order does not address whether the vexatious-litigant determination could be reviewed by some other vehicle, nor does it reach any substantive challenge to the underlying district court ruling.