After the notice of appeal was filed, the district court entered

an order in the failure-to-defend action granting summary judgment in favor of one of the remaining defendants on the ground that the default judgment entered against Sun Rockeries was invalid. Comfort Residential did not appeal that judgment, and Nova subsequently filed the instant motion to dismiss this appeal as moot in light of the district court's order regarding the default judgment. Nova's motion is based on the premise that, even if this court were to conclude that Nova had a duty to defend Sun Rockeries, Comfort Residential would not be entitled to recover a judgment on its claim against Nova, as the underlying default judgment has been determined to be invalid.

In opposing the motion to dismiss, Comfort Residential contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order as to the default judgment in light of the pending appeal. The matter before this court on appeal, however, concerns whether Nova had a duty to defend Sun Rockeries, and if so, whether the amount of the default judgment is the proper measure of damages for its failure to do so. While the district court's order concluding that the default judgment was invalid may have rendered this appeal moot by negating the need to answer the questions before this court, it did not in any way affect the analysis of the merits of those questions. Thus, the district court had jurisdiction to enter the order. See Mack-Manley v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849, 855, 138 P.3d 525, 529-30 (2006) (explaining that "when an appeal is perfected, the district court is divested of jurisdiction to revisit issues that are pending before this court, [but] retains jurisdiction to enter orders on matters that are collateral to and independent from the appealed order, i.e., matters that in no way affect the appeal's merits"). Beyond its jurisdictional argument,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2- Douglas

Saitta Comfort Residential does not dispute that the district court's order regarding the default judgment rendered this appeal moot.

Accordingly, we conclude that dismissal is appropriate, 

### see Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 126 Nev. „ 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (explaining that "Whis court's duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment," and that "even though a case may present a live controversy at its beginning, subsequent events may render the case moot"), and we therefore

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.'

'Having considered respondent's May 2, 2013, notice of permission to appear under SCR 42, we conclude that no action need be taken as to that document. We also disapprove as moot the parties' May 2, 2013, stipulation for extension of time to file the answering brief. The clerk of this court shall return, unfiled, respondent's answering brief, provisionally received on June 27, 2013.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3

### cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Paul F. Hamilton, Settlement Judge Greene & Markley, P.C. Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low Kilmer, Voorhees & Laurick, PC Jenkins & Carter Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 

### 4