Gibbons 

Saitta 

J. 

, C.J. 

reverse the district court's order insofar as it dismissed appellant's 

complaint, and we remand this matter to the district court with 

instructions to the court that it enter an amended order staying the 

underlying proceedings. In light of this conclusion, the order compelling 

arbitration is interlocutory, and we necessarily lack jurisdiction to 

consider at this time whether that decision was correct. Clark Cnty. v. 

Empire Elec., Inc., 96 Nev. 18, 19, 604 P.2d 352, 353 (1980). Accordingly, 

we summarily 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

CustA 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Cathy Valenta Weise, Settlement Judge 

Whitehead & Whitehead 

Tory M. Pankopf 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
HARDESTY, J., concurring: 

I concur with the majority that the district court's order 

dismissing the action should be reversed and a stay of the proceedings 

pending the outcome of the arbitration should be imposed. However, I 

would do so by published opinion discussing the competing approaches to 

the jurisdictional issue created when a district court compels arbitration 

but dismisses the action. In particular, a conflict exists between our rules 

governing appeals from final judgments and our caselaw interpreting 

appeals under NRS 38.247, and this case requires resolution of that 

conflict. Therefore, disposition by published opinion is appropriate. See 

NRAP 36(c)(1) ("The court will decide a case by published opinion if 

it. . . [p]resents an issue of first impression. . . ."). 

Under the Uniform Arbitration Act, when a district court 

grants an order to compel arbitration, the court is required to stay the 

proceedings before it, pending the arbitration's conclusion. NRS 38.221(7). 

In light of its interlocutory nature, the Act does not permit an appeal from 

an order granting a motion to compel arbitration. NRS 38.247(1) (listing 

appealable orders). As a result, this court has held that no appeal may be 

taken from an order compelling arbitration, see Clark Cnty. v. Empire 

Elec., Inc., 96 Nev. 18, 19, 604 P.2d 352, 353 (1980), and that if a party 

seeks to obtain review of the district court's decision to compel arbitration, 

that party must either file a petition for a writ of mandamus, see State ex 

rel. Masto v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 37, 44, 199 P.3d 828, 

832 (2009), or appeal from the district court's later order confirming the 

arbitration award. See Whitemaine v. Aniskovich, 124 Nev. 302, 307 n.5, 

183 P.3d 137, 141 n.5 (2008). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
As happened here, however, when the district court fails to 

stay the proceedings and instead dismisses the action altogether, the order 

technically becomes a final judgment, thereby making the order 

appealable. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 

(2000) ("[A] final judgment is one that disposes of all the issues presented 

in the case, and leaves nothing for the future consideration of the court, 

except for post-judgment issues such as attorney's fees and costs."); NRAP 

3A(b)(1) (permitting an appeal from a final judgment). Thus, this case 

presents the novel question of whether this court has jurisdiction to review 

the arbitrability issue—i.e., whether the district court properly compelled 

arbitration—in an appeal from an order that has compelled arbitration 

and dismissed the action. 

There are three basic approaches that appellate courts take 

when determining whether the arbitrability issue is properly reviewable 

in an appeal from an order that has compelled arbitration and dismissed 

the action. Some courts conclude that the arbitrability issue is reviewable 

because the decision to compel arbitration is the last true decision that the 

lower court must make with regard to the case. See, e.g., Sawyers v. 

Herrin-Gear Chevrolet Co., 26 So. 3d 1026, 1033-34 (Miss. 2010); Kremer v. 

Rural Cmty. Ins. Co., 788 N.W.2d 538, 548-49 (Neb. 2010). In essence, 

these courts reason that the act of ordering the parties to arbitration is 

what makes the order an appealable final judgment. 

Other courts conclude that the arbitrability issue is properly 

reviewable because the order compelling arbitration also dismissed the 

action, but that the arbitrability issue would not have been reviewable if 

the order had stayed the underlying proceedings. See, e.g., Green Tree 

Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86-87 (2000); Commonwealth v. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A )4. , 

2 
Philip Morris Inc., 864 N.E.2d 505, 511 n.9 (Mass. 2007); In re Gulf 

Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 839-40 (Tex. 2009). These courts 

reason that the act of dismissing the action is what makes the order 

appealable as a final judgment and that this element is lacking when the 

order stays the underlying proceedings. 

Still other courts conclude that the arbitrability issue is never 

reviewable in an appeal from an order compelling arbitration—even when 

the appealed-from order has dismissed the action in its entirety. See, e.g., 

Widener v. Fort Mill Ford, 674 S.E.2d 172, 173-74 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009); 

Judith v. Graphic Commc'ns Int'l Union, 727 A.2d 890, 891-92 (D.C. 1999); 

Muao v. Grosvenor Props. Ltd., 122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 131, 138 (Ct. App. 2002). 

These courts recognize that the Uniform Arbitration Act requires a lower 

court to stay the proceedings upon ordering arbitration, and that an order 

compelling arbitration is not among the Act's list of appealable orders. 

Widener, 674 S.E.2d at 173-74; Judith, 727 A.2d at 891-92; Muao, 122 Cal. 

Rptr. 2d at 134, 138 (analyzing California's analog to the Act). 

Consequently, these courts decline to review the arbitrability issue 

because the jurisdictional basis for doing so rests solely on the lower 

court's decision to improperly dismiss the action. 

In my view, the superior approach is the third approach, as 

that approach is more consistent with the interlocutory nature of an order 

compelling arbitration and it prevents the district court from conferring 

jurisdiction on this court over the otherwise unappealable arbitrability 

issue based solely on the improper dismissal of the underlying action. 

Thus, in this case, I concur with the majority's decision to reverse the 

district court's dismissal of appellant's action and to decline to reach the 

question of whether arbitration was properly compelled. But because the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
J. 

jurisdictional issue in this case presents a novel question of law in 

Nevada, I would dispose of this case by published opinion. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4