ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
In this appeal, appellant appears to challenge a minute order denying appellants motion for summary judgment and an order denying a motion to alter or amend. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark R. Denton, Judge.
This court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, it appeared that neither the minute order nor the order denying the motion to alter or amend is appealable. See Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 415, 454, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004); AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 590, 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010). Further, to the extent appellant appeals from the February 24, 2023, order denying its motion for summary judgment, that order is also not appealable. See Lee v. CNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000).
Appellant has filed a response in which it represents that the appeal is now moot and requests that this court either file an attached motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal or allow it to file the motion separately. Respondent has not filed any reply.
The response is construed as a motion for leave to file the motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal and granted as such.
1
See NRAP 27(a)(1) (providing that an application for relief is generally made by motion). The clerk shall detach the motion to voluntarily dismiss attached as exhibit A to the response filed on November 29, 2023, and file it separately.
The motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal is granted. This appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b). This court expresses no opinion, however, regarding the assertions of fact and law made within the motion.
It is so ORDERED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Although this court grants the motion, it is noted that leave of court is not generally required before filing a motion.