to file the brief. Based on appellants' failure to timely submit the brief by 

the May 13 requested deadline, this court entered an order on May 24, 

2013, denying as moot appellants' April 12 motion for a second extension 

of time. As a courtesy before dismissing the appeals as abandoned, this 

court's May 24 order allowed appellants 11 days, until June 4, 2013, to file 

and serve the opening brief and appendix and warned that failure to do so 

could result in the dismissal of these appeals as abandoned. Appellants 

did not file and serve the opening brief and appendix by June 4. 

On June 10, respondents filed their motion to dismiss these 

appeals. Appellants oppose the motion and have filed a motion again 

asking for more time to file the opening brief, seeking what they refer to as 

an additional six-day extension, until June 12, 2013. Appellants' counsel, 

Beau Sterling, states that the "short amount of additional time is 

requested in order to help spread out the deadlines slightly on a number of 

matters, including this one, that all fell due around the same time, and 

most of which are similarly urgent." Counsel then points out that he 

recently filed briefs in other matters and prepared for two oral arguments 

and attended his son's high school graduation. Counsel states that his 

motion for an extension of time was late because he wanted to be sure he 

could complete the brief by any new deadline requested before making the 

motion. 

Respondents oppose any additional extension of time, arguing 

that although appellants' latest motion for an extension of time explains 

that Mr. Sterling was on his way out of town when this court entered its 

May 24 order, the motion provides no explanation regarding how long Mr. 

Sterling was out of town, when he became aware of the order, or why he 

2 
did not seek relief from the order before the 11-day time limit expired, 

instead waiting 17 days without explanation for the delay. 

Appellants have replied, stating that this court did not 

preclude appellants from requesting any additional extensions of time to 

comply with the "new deadline" specified in the May 24 order, which they 

say "is not surprising given that, because of the timing of service of the 

[May 24] order (late Friday afternoon before the 3-day Memorial Day 

weekend), the period covered by the 11-day order included only 6 business 

days." Appellants also state that the additional time requested "is not a 

substantial delay, and, in fact, the opening brief and appellants' 7-volume 

appendix were submitted to the Court and served on opposing counsel on 

the newly requested due date," June 12. 

In reply to appellants' opposition to their motion to dismiss, 

respondents state that although this court's May 24 order denied the 

second motion for an extension of time, as an accommodation to Mr. 

Sterling, it allowed an 11-day grace period for filing the opening brief and 

that order could not "possibly have lead Mr. Sterling to believe the court 

would grant another extension or that the 11-day time limit in the order 

could be ignored." Respondents also state that although Mr. Sterling 

represented that he attempted to contact attorney Dane Anderson to 

confer on a third extension of time, Mr. Anderson is not counsel in this 

appeal, and never has been, and Mr. Sterling knows it. 

On June 14, 2013, appellants electronically filed in this court a 

"certificate of service" for the opening brief and appendix, indicating that 

on June 12, 2013, they submitted to this court and served on respondents 

by United States mail the opening brief and appendix. The brief and 

appendix, however, were not submitted to this court for filing with the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
certificate of service. Only the certificate of service was filed. The opening 

brief and appendix were subsequently provisionally received in this court 

on June 17, 2013. 

Appellants, in their motion practice, appear to blame this 

court for their delays and failure to abide by court rules and comply with 

court orders based on this court entering an order allowing them an 

additional 11 days to file their already overdue brief on a Friday before a 

three-day weekend. According to appellants, by entering the order on a 

Friday before a holiday weekend, this court narrowed the deadline for 

appellants to file their opening brief to only six days. What appellants fail 

to recognize, however, is that they missed all deadlines that this court 

extended to them for filing the opening brief and appendix. Appellants' 

opening brief was originally due on March 12, 2013. This court granted a 

30-day extension of time, making the new deadline April 11, 2013. 

Appellants then asked that they be allowed until May 13, 2013, to file the 

brief. When they failed to submit the brief by that date, this court entered 

an order on May 24, 2013, which, instead of dismissing the appeal as 

abandoned, allowed appellants yet another 11 days (until June 4, 2013) to 

file the brief. Appellants failed to file the brief by June 4, and failed to 

seek more time before that date. Respondents moved to dismiss based on 

appellants' failures. Although appellants asked that they be allowed until 

June 12 to file the brief, they did not submit the brief for filing by June 12, 

but instead electronically filed only a certificate of service for the brief on 

June 14, indicating that the brief and appendix were submitted to this 

court and served on respondents on June 12 via U.S. mail. The brief and 

appendix were subsequently provisionally received in this court on June 

17, but that submission is nevertheless beyond the June 4 deadline that 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 
this court extended to Mr. Sterling as a courtesy before dismissing these 

appeals. These repeated failures to timely comply with this court's rules 

and directives have unnecessarily delayed these appeals and increased 

this court's workload and they cannot be condoned. See Weddell v. 

Stewart, 127 Nev. , 261 P.3d 1080 (2011) (addressing repeated failures 

to follow court rules and court directives in declining to reconsider an 

order dismissing an appeal based on such failures). 

Accordingly, appellants' untimely motion for an extension of 

time is denied, respondents' motion to dismiss is granted, and we hereby 

dismiss these appeals. 

Counsel's referral to the State Bar of Nevada 

Appellants' attorney Beau Sterling was recently ordered to 

appear before the en bane court to show cause why he should not be 

barred from practicing before this court based on repeated failures to 

comply with briefing deadlines, Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, and 

this court's orders and directives. In so ordering, this court noted that Mr. 

Sterling's failure to comply with this court's rules, notices, and orders had 

significantly delayed the appeals for which he was ordered to appear and 

was unacceptable. See RPC 1.1 (requiring attorneys to provide competent 

representation to their clients); RPC 1.3 ("A lawyer shall act with 

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client."). At the 

same time that counsel was ordered to appear and show cause, this court 

referred counsel to the Nevada State Bar for investigation. In so doing, 

this court outlined multiple civil and criminal appeals in which Mr. 

Sterling repeatedly missed deadlines, thus significantly delaying the 

appeals to the potential detriment of his clients. When counsel appeared 

before this court, he represented that he had regained control of his 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A <4Sg 

5 
Parre.guirre 

caseload and had implemented plans to alleviate such delays in the future. 

Despite these representations, counsel failed to timely file the opening 

brief and appendix, in violation of the rules of appellate procedure, and 

failed to comply with this court's order directing him to file the overdue 

brief by June 4, 2013, which, to the detriment of his client, resulted in this 

order dismissing these appeals. Accordingly, as a result of Mr. Sterling's 

failure to meet deadlines and follow court rules and orders, we refer him to 

the State Bar of Nevada to pursue such investigation and discipline as it 

sees fit. See Weddell, 127 Nev. at n.9, 261 P.3d at 1085 n.9 (noting 

that counsel may be referred to the State Bar for investigation for failure 

to comply with this court's rules, notices, orders, or other directives). The 

clerk of this court is directed to mail to the State Bar copies of all motions, 

oppositions, and responses filed in these appeals since March 8, 2013, 

when appellants filed their first motion for an extension of time, as well as 

this court's May 24, 2013, order denying as moot appellants' second 

motion for an extension of time. 

It is so ORDERED. 1 

Hardesty 

, J. 

1The clerk of this court is directed to return, unfiled, the opening 

brief and appendix, which were provisionally received in this court on 

June 17, 2013. 

6 
cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge 

James Georgeson, Settlement Judge 

Sterling Law, LLC 

Hoffman Test Guinan & Collier 

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg 

Wm. Patterson Cashill 

State Bar of Nevada 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

7