Opinion ID: 2622776
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Substantive appealability

Text: Preliminarily, PPA explains that it filed both a writ petition and an appeal because it is unclear whether the district court's order enforcing the citizen review board's subpoena is substantively appealable. [6] This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. [7] Although no statute exists authorizing appeals from orders enforcing advisory review board subpoenas, NRAP 3A(b)(1) permits an aggrieved party to appeal from the final judgment in an action or proceeding commenced in the court in which the judgment is rendered. 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. [8] PPA maintains that the district court's order stands immediately next to an order of contempt and is therefore nonappealable under this court's reasoning in Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners. [9] In Pengilly, we concluded that a contempt order arising from within an underlying district court action is not appealable but challengeable only through a writ petition. [10] But in this case, the district court's order was not ancillary to any other district court action; rather, the citizen review board applied for relief directly under NRS 289.390(2), which governs enforcement actions. NRS 289.390(2) does not address contempt but instead merely authorizes an advisory review board hearing panel to petition the district court for an order directing a noncomplying witness to appear or testify, or, in other words, to enforce an advisory review board subpoena. And since advisory review board subpoenas are not court-issued, the court must enter an enforcement order under NRS 289.390(2), and that order must be disobeyed, before any contempt of court proceedings will lie. Thus, although the citizen review board also filed its action under NRS 22.010, which specifically governs contempt, that issue was not properly before the court, and the citizen review board prematurely invoked NRS 22.010's contempt provisions. [11] In effect, the court's order merely enforced the citizen review board's subpoena under NRS 289.390(2). It did not hold or refuse to hold Officer Leyba in contempt for his failure to appear before the hearing panel. [12] Because the district court's order resolved all of the issues properly before the court, concluding the statutorily authorized NRS 289.390(2) process, the district court's order was the final resolution of the issues presented in a district court proceeding and consequently is appealable by an aggrieved party. [13] Notably, other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion under similar finality requirements. [14] For instance, the United States Supreme Court has distinguished orders upholding administrative subpoenas from nonappealable discovery enforcement orders arising from grand jury and other judicial proceedings because, once the former order is issued, there remains nothing for [the court] to do. [15] Similarly, the California Court of Appeal has held that the better view is that `orders requiring compliance with the subpoenas are appealable as final judgments in special proceedings,' rather than reviewable only by extraordinary writ. [16] Likewise, we conclude that the proper method for a party to challenge a district court order enforcing or refusing to enforce an administrative subpoena, when the order resolves all issues in the proceeding, is by way of appeal.