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