judyrecords
search tips
760 million+
United States Court Cases

Nevada Supreme/Appellate Court Record

LUCKETT VS. DOUMANI

Case Information: 39052
Short Caption:LUCKETT VS. DOUMANICourt:Supreme Court
Related Case(s): 37936 , 38846 , 45400
Lower Court Case(s):Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - A429810Classification:Civil Appeal - Family Law - Proper Person
Disqualifications:Case Status:Remittitur Issued/Case Closed
Replacement:Panel Assigned: En Banc
To SP/Judge:SP Status:
Oral Argument:Oral Argument Location:
Submission Date:02/04/2002How Submitted:On Record

+ Party Information

Docket Entries
DateTypeDescriptionPending?Document
01/10/2002Filing Fee Filing Fee due. Waived 01/15/02. See case note.
01/10/2002Notice of Appeal DocumentsFiled Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal/Proper Person. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this day. 02-00735
01/10/2002Notice/OutgoingIssued Notice to Pay Supreme Court Filing Fee. Due Date: 10 days
01/15/2002Filing Fee Filing Fee Waived. See case note.
01/16/2002Order/ProceduralFiled Order/Transmit Record and Directing Response. Original record due: 30 days. fn3[The record shall not include any exhibits filed in the district court.] 02-01092
01/17/2002Notice of Appeal DocumentsFiled Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal/Proper Person. (Appeal from 12/27/01 order.) 02-01257
02/04/2002Record on Appeal DocumentsFiled Record on Appeal. 02-02318
02/04/2002Case Status Update Submitted for Decision.
02/08/2002MotionFiled Motion to Dismiss Appeal. 02-02568
06/01/2004Order/ProceduralFiled Order Denying Motion. to Dismiss and Directing Response. This is a proper person appeal from a December 27, 2001 district court order granting respondents Edward Doumani's and La Concha Motel's motion to dismiss for failure to post security for costs. fn1—[The complaint and appeal also named Michael Lanni as defendant/respondent; Lanni was apparently never properly served and never appeared in the district court proceedings. Accordingly, he was never a party to the district court proceedings and is not properly named in this appeal. We therefore direct the clerk of this court to remove Lanni from the caption on this court's docket.] Appellant John Luckett also challenges a district court order that declared him a vexatious litigant. Respondents Doumani and La Concha Motel have moved to dismiss this appeal because Luckett has not paid filing fees for the appeal and because Luckett 'has not sought or obtained permission to practice before the court.' We note that Luckett's filing fee in this court has been waived, and we decline to dismiss this appeal based on Luckett's failure to obtain leave to file papers pursuant to NRAP 46(b). Accordingly, we deny the motion to dismiss this appeal. In addition, upon reviewing the record, it appears that the district court may have erred in dismissing Luckett's complaint. Consequently, we direct respondents Doumani and La Concha Motel to address whether the district court, in its written order, improperly granted the motion to dismiss based on Luckett's failure to post security for costs, since the district court had previously granted Luckett leave to proceed in forma pauperis. It appears that the district court order granting in forma pauperis status may have waived any security-posting requirements and may have been in effect when the December dismissal order was entered. Furthermore, even if a subsequent court order had at some point effectively cancelled the waiver of security-posting requirements, it is unclear whether Luckett was thereafter properly notified that security was required and, if so, whether the motion to dismiss was timely granted. Accordingly, respondents Doumani and La Concha Motel shall have thirty days from the date of this order within which to demonstrate why the district court's dismissal order should not be reversed and this case remanded for further proceedings. 04-09939
06/25/2004MotionFiled Response to Order to Show Cause. Response to Order from this Court Dated June 1, 2004. 04-11657
04/14/2005Opinion/DispositionalFiled Per Curiam Opinion. "Affirmed and remanded with instructions." fn90[Although Luckett was not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the proper person documents received from Luckett. In light of this opinion, we deny his proper person motions as moot.] Before the Court EN BANC. Author: Per Curiam. Majority: Becker, C.J., Rose, Maupin, Gibbons, Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre, JJ. 121 Nev. Adv. Opn. No. 7. EN BANC. Nos. 38189/39052 - cases are not consolidated. 05-07281
04/20/2005Post-Judgment PetitionReceived Proper Person Petition for Rehearing. Req. For Re-Hearing, and or Reconsideration. Objection to Consolidation of Appeal with Non-Related Case No. 38189. 05-07699
05/25/2005Notice/OutgoingIssued Letter. to the Publishers from Cay Jordan, Editor. Correction on the original opinion: page 1, 2, 12 and 35. Nos. 38189/39052 - cases are not consolidated.
06/07/2005Post-Judgment OrderFiled Order/Rehearing Denied. fn1-[ The clerk of this court shall file Luckett's petition for rehearing, provisionally received in this court on April 20, 2005.] " . . .rehearing is denied." 05-11107
06/07/2005Post-Judgment PetitionFiled Proper Person Petition for Rehearing. Req. For Re-Hearing, and or Reconsideration. Objection to Consolidation of Appeal with Non-Related Case No. 38189. 05-07699
06/17/2005Order/ProceduralFiled Order. Denying Request. On June 13, 2005, we received a request from proper person Luckett to modify the April 14, opinion. As we have already considered Luckett's concerns pertaining to the April 14 opinion, his request for modification is denied as moot. We direct the clerk of this court to return, unfiled, any future documents submitted by Luckett pertaining to this matter and/or requesting that this court revisit its April 14 opinion. 05-11988
07/06/2005RemittiturIssued Remittitur. Returned Record on Appeal this day. 05-13351
07/06/2005Case Status Update Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.
07/22/2005RemittiturFiled Remittitur. Received by County Clerk on July 11, 2005. 05-13351