When our preliminary review of the docketing statements and 

the NRAP 3(g) documents revealed potential jurisdictional defects, we 

ordered appellant and cross-appellants to show cause why this appeal and 

cross-appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. First, it 

appeared that the district court has not entered a final, written judgment 

adjudicating all the rights and liabilities of all the parties. NRAP 3A(b)(1) 

(listing final judgments as appealable); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 

996 P.2d 416 (2000) (noting that a final judgment is one that disposes of 

all the claims and issues of all the parties); Mallin v. Farmers Ins. 

Exchange, 106 Nev. 606, 608-09, 797 P.2d 978, 980 (1990) (recognizing 

that consolidated district court actions are treated as one case for purposes 

of determining whether a final, appealable judgment has been entered). 

Second, with respect to the cross-appeal, it appeared that cross-appellants 

were not aggrieved parties with standing to appeal, because the district 

court ultimately dismissed the claims against them. See NRAP 3A(a); 

Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 

(1994). 

The parties timely responded. In its response, appellant 

argues that all claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims were 

resolved by the NRCP 41(e) dismissal. See United Ass'n of Journeymen v. 

Manson, 105 Nev. 816, 783 P.2d 955 (1989). Cross-appellants largely 

agree with appellant but also explain that the counterclaims against crossrespondent OneCap Mortgage were not dismissed under NRCP 41(e) 

because they were subject to the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 

U.S.C. § 362 at the time the rest of the action was dismissed. No party 

addressed whether the NRCP 41(e) dismissal affected Sunwest Homes, 

Inc.'s claims asserted in the consolidated case below, Case No. A558034. 

Cross-appellants also asserted that although the claims against them were 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Hardesty 

Parraguirre 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

ESSEEME 

3 

MIIMESEMIEBEINICEEME 

dismissed, they were adversely affected by a prior district court order 

denying their motion for summary judgment and should be allowed either 

to appeal or to raise arguments concerning the summary judgment denial 

within the context of appellant's appeal. See Ford v. Showboat Operating 

Co., 110 Nev. 752, 755, 877 P.2d 546, 548 (1994) (recognizing that a party 

"who is not aggrieved by a judgment need not appeal from the judgment in 

order to raise arguments in support of the judgment not necessarily 

accepted by the district court"). 

The parties have not demonstrated that Sunwest Homes, 

Inc.'s claims asserted in the consolidated case below, Case No. A558034, 

have been resolved. Moreover, based on cross-appellants' response 

showing that the counterclaims against OneCap Mortgage were subject to 

the automatic bankruptcy stay as of July 16, 2010, those claims ostensibly 

have not yet been resolved below. As a result, it appears that no final 

judgment has been entered. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 

416. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' 

J. 

'As this appeal and cross-appeal apparently pertain only to the 

claims by appellant Ascendant Universal Fund I, LLC, not those against 

Ascendant Universal Fund I, the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 

U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) (2010), does not prevent this jurisdictional disposition. 
cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge 

Harold P. Gewerter, Esq., Ltd. 

Serenata Development Group, LLC 

Shadow Ranch Indio, LLC 

Bailey Kennedy 

Joseph S. Sciscento 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

4 

INNEMOVAI MINIM EMBIBV