Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Justice Gibbons.
In this appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether the court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a post-judgment order in the district court that designated a party as a “vexatious litigant.” To resolve this question, the court first considered whether this type of post-judgment order is appealable under NRAP 3A(b). The court concluded that the only possible vehicles for this appeal were special orders after final judgment under NRAP 3(b)(8) and injunctions under NRAP 3A(b)(3). However, neither of these provisions applies to orders designating a party as a vexatious litigant. Special orders are limited to decisions that affect the rights of a party to the action and arise out of the judgment, and a declaration that a party is a vexatious litigant arises out of the United States and Nevada Constitutions, case law, statutes, and court rules. Injunctions are governed by NRCP 65, which does not apply to vexatious litigation orders. Accordingly, these orders are not directly appealable and the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court concluded that a writ is the appropriate way to challenge a vexatious litigant order because such orders relate to whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the order. Dismissed. (Seth T. Floyd, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
