JOE VALDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant,
COX COMMUNICATIONS LAS VEGAS, INC.; AND VIDEO INTERNET PHONE INSTALLS, INC., Respondents
Motion to dismiss in part, for lack of jurisdiction, an appeal from a district court order in an unpaid wage action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kenneth C. Cory, Judge.
Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation and Leon M. Greenberg and Dana Sniegocki, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Duane Morris LLP and Ryan A. Loosvelt, Las Vegas; Chamberlain Hrdicka and Annette A. Idalski, Atlanta, Georgia, for Respondent Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.
Littler Mendelson, P.C., and Rick D. Roskelley, Montgomery Y. Paek, and Kathryn B. Blakey, Las Vegas, for Respondent Video Internet Phone Installs, Inc.
BEFORE HARDESTY, DOUGLAS and CHERRY, JJ.
Appellant Joe Valdez filed the underlying action against four defendants. Ultimately, the claims against respondent Video Internet Phone Installs, Inc. (VIPI), were severed from the rest of the claims and thereafter resolved. Instead of appealing from the order resolving the severed claims against VIPI, however, Valdez waited to appeal from the order finally resolving the unsevered claims before challenging interlocutory orders regarding VIPI. We issue this opinion to clarify that one must take an appeal from an order finally resolving severed claims, even if the unsevered claims remain pending.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Valdez filed a class action against VIPI; Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.; Quality Communications, Inc.; and Sierra Communications Services, Inc., alleging failure to pay wages in accordance with Nevada law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. After the action was removed to federal court and the claims against Quality Communications were resolved, the state law claims against the remaining three defendants were remanded to Nevada state court.
The claims against VIPI were severed in April 2013 and thereafter resolved in an October 18, 2013, order. The notice of entry of that order was served on November 18, 2013. Valdez did not file a notice of appeal from the October 2013 order. Instead, Valdez appealed from the district court's March 4, 2014, order approving the class action settlement between Valdez and Sierra Communications, which finally resolved the remaining claims and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. While Valdez does not challenge the March 2014 order in his appeal, he challenges three interlocutory orders, two of which involve VIPI and one of which involves Cox Communications.
VIPI filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as to it, arguing that Valdez could not challenge the interlocutory orders regarding VIPI because Valdez had failed to timely appeal from the October 2013 order, which finally resolved all the severed claims against VIPI. Valdez filed an opposition to that motion and VIPI filed a reply. In his opposition, Valdez contends that he ...