| 10/20/2004 | Order/Procedural | Filed 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
|
| 08/12/2005 | Order/Procedural | Filed 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
|