Taylor v. Brill, M.D.

2022-08-11

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Kimberly Taylor appealed a trial court order that denied her motion to disqualify her opponent's law firm. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court identified a jurisdictional problem: there is no statute or court rule that permits direct appeals from attorney disqualification orders. The court noted that in prior cases, it has consistently held that mandamus, not direct appeal, is the proper legal remedy when challenging such orders.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an order denying a motion to disqualify opposing counsel is appealable
The proper remedy for challenging an attorney disqualification order
Statutory limits on the right to appeal

Procedural posture

This appeal arose from a postjudgment order denying a motion to disqualify respondents' law firm in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KIMBERLY D. TAYLOR, AN No. 84421

INDIVIDUAL,

Appellant,

VS.

KEITH BRILL, M.D., FACOG, FACS,

FILE

AN INDIVIDUAL; AND WOMEN'S AUG 1 1 2022

HEALTH ASSOCIATES OF

ELIZABE A. BROWN

SOUTHERN NEVADA-MARTIN PLLC, CL OF var.:. COURT

A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL LIMITED CLERK

LIABILITY COMPANY,

Res • ondents.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a postjudgment order denying a motion

to disqualify respondents' law firm. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark

County; J. Charles Thompson, Judge.

Initial review of this appeal revealed a potential jurisdictional

defect. Specifically, it appears that the order challenged on appeal is not

substantively appealable. Accordingly, this court directed appellant to

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant has filed a response to this court's show cause order, and

respondents have filed a reply.

In her response to the order to show cause, appellant argues

that the challenged order is appealable as a special order entered after final

judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8). This court has repeatedly stated that

mandamus is the appropriate vehicle for challenging orders disqualifying

counsel. See Nev. Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev.

44, 49, 152 P.3d 737, 740 (2007); Waid v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121

Nev. 605, 609, 119 P.3d 1219, 1222 (2005); Leibowitz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. SUPREME COURT

NEVADA

(()) 1947A dISP. ,

z -2-zcitifq

.„.

4r. •

Court, 119 Nev. 523, 529, 78 P.3d 515, 519 (2003). The right to an appeal

is statutory; if no statute or court rule provides for an appeal, no right to

appeal exists. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301

P.3d 850, 851 (2013). No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from

an attorney disqualification order. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction

and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

Hardesty

AI,L$G4-0

Stiglich Herndon

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court

Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge

Breeden & Associates, PLLC

McBride Hall

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

N EVADA

fO l7A ...Mr, 2