search tips
740 million+
United States Court Cases

Nevada Supreme/Appellate Court Record


Case Information: 40125
Short Caption:SHIH-HSIEH VS. MGM GRAND HOTELCourt:Supreme Court
Lower Court Case(s):Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - A411877Classification:Civil Appeal - Family Law - Proper Person
Disqualifications:Case Status:Remittitur Issued/Case Closed
Replacement:Panel Assigned: Panel
To SP/Judge:SP Status:
Oral Argument:Oral Argument Location:
Submission Date:11/14/2002How Submitted:On Record

+ Party Information

Docket Entries
08/28/2002Filing FeeReceived Filing Fee Paid on Filing. $200.00 from Marilan Shih-Hsieh (Emily Stevens Services--check no. 2698).
08/28/2002Notice of Appeal DocumentsFiled Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal/Proper Person. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this day. 02-14863
11/04/2002Order/ProceduralFiled Order/Transmit Record and Directing Response. Original record due: 30 days. fn 2[The record shall contain each and every paper, pleading and other document filed, or submitted for filing, in the district court, as well a any previously prepared transcripts of the district court proceedings). fn3[The record shall not include any exhibits filed in the district court.] 02-18906
11/14/2002Record on Appeal DocumentsFiled Record on Appeal. Vols. 1 and 2, 02-19637
11/14/2002Case Status Update Submitted for Decision.
08/27/2004Notice/IncomingFiled Substitution of Attorneys. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. consents to the substitution of The Wolfenzon Law Group in place and stead of Mark E. Ferrario of O'Reilly & Ferrario, LLC. 04-15608
08/27/2004MotionFiled Motion to Dismiss Appeal. 04-15617
10/20/2004Order/ProceduralFiled Order. Denying Motion to Dismiss and Directing Compliance with NRAP 7. Currently at issue is respondent's August 27, 2004 motion to dismiss this appeal. In its motion, respondent requests that this court dismiss the appeal based on appellant's alleged failure to comply with NRAP 14, governing the filing of docketing statements, and NRAP 7, governing the posting of a bond or other security for costs on appeal. However, respondent's motion ignores the mandate in NRAP 14(a) prohibiting a proper person appellant from filing a docketing statement unless ordered to do so by this court, a direction that we have not given. Further, respondent neglects to mention appellant's attempted request for a waiver of the appeal bond in this matter. Although there appears to be no authority allowing the district court to 'waive' an otherwise required appeal bond, NRAP 7 does permit the court to fix the amount of a bond for costs on appeal. It appears that appellant may have been attempting to request the district court to fix the bond requirement in an amount other than $250, and that this attempted request has not yet been resolved. Therefore, this appeal should not be dismissed for appellant's failure to comply with NRAP 7. For the above reasons, we deny the motion to dismiss this appeal. Nevertheless, proper compliance with NRAP 7 is required. Appellant shall have fifteen days within which to submit, to the clerk of this court, proof of the $250 appeal bond's payment, to submit a file-stamped copy of a proper district court motion to fix a different bond amount, or to submit a file-stamped district court order showing that compliance with NRAP 7 has otherwise been accomplished. Further, if appellant chooses to file a motion to fix a different bond amount in the district court, the district court shall rule on the motion within thirty days, and appellant shall then provide a file-stamped copy of the district court's order to this court. We caution appellant that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this appeal. Fn2 [Although appellant was not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the September 13, 2004 proper person documents received from appellant. To the extent that appellant's September 2004 correspondence requests leave from this court to file a motion for sanctions or further direction and continuance from this court, it is denied. We defer ruling on appellant's May 10, 2004 request for leave to file attached documents.] 04-19357
11/08/2004Letter/IncomingFiled Letter. from Clark County Clerk. The cost bond has been paid by Marilan Shih-Hsieh. 04-20555
05/12/2005Order/ProceduralFiled Order. Directing Response. Respondent shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file a response, including authorities, addressing why the district court's order should not be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. 05-09288
06/10/2005MotionFiled Response to Order to Show Cause. 05-11430
06/20/2005MotionReceived Proper Person Motion. Motion for Permission to file Response. 05-12102
08/12/2005Order/ProceduralFiled Order Granting Motion. On May 12, 2005, we directed respondent to file a response addressing why the district court's order should not be reversed. Respondent timely filed a response on June 10, 2005. On June 20, 2005, appellant submitted a motion for leave to file a reply; respondent has not opposed the motion. We grant the motion. Respondent shall have thirty days from the date of this order within which to file a reply. Fn1 [We direct the clerk to file appellant's motion, received on June 20, 2005.] 05-15975
08/12/2005MotionFiled Proper Person Motion. Motion for Permission to File Response. 05-12102
09/12/2005MotionFiled Reply to Response. Reply pursuant to Supreme Court Order Filed August 12, 2005. 05-17981
09/23/2005Order/DispositionalFiled Order of Affirmance. "ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED." fn4[We have considered the proper person documents received from her, and we deny any relief requested as moot.] SNP06-WM/MG/JH 05-18929
10/19/2005RemittiturIssued Remittitur. Returned Record on Appeal, Vols. 1 and 2 this day. 05-19239
10/19/2005Case Status Update Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.
11/03/2005RemittiturFiled Remittitur. Received by County Clerk on October 21, 2005. 05-19239