Havens Vs. Kurian, 83196

Appellant Warren Havens appealed a district-court special order after a final judgment in a contract action; written notice of the order was served December 23, 2020.
Before Havens’ appeal deadline expired, he (as a petitioning creditor) filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition in the D.C. Bankruptcy Court against an entity named Skybridge — an entity that was not a party to the underlying district-court action.
The bankruptcy court concluded Skybridge was the sole alleged debtor in the petition and dismissed Havens’ involuntary petition on June 3, 2021.
Havens filed his notice of appeal from the district-court order on July 6, 2021 — past the 30‑day appeal period under NRAP 4(a)(1).
Havens argued the automatic bankruptcy stay tolled the appeal deadline and that his timely appeal followed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition; respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.
The Nevada Supreme Court held the automatic stay did not toll Havens’ appeal deadline because the stay applies only to actions against the debtor (Skybridge), not to non‑debtor parties in the underlying action; consequently the appeal was untimely and was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an untimely notice of appeal vests the Nevada Supreme Court with jurisdiction	Havens argued the appeal deadline was tolled by the bankruptcy proceedings, making his later notice timely	Respondents argued the notice was untimely and therefore the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction	Court held untimely notice does not vest jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether an involuntary bankruptcy petition against a third‑party debtor tolls the appellant’s state appeal deadline	Havens argued his filing triggered automatic‑stay tolling of the appeal period	Respondents argued the automatic stay applies only to the debtor and does not toll deadlines for non‑debtor parties	Court held automatic stay tolling applies only as to the debtor in bankruptcy and does not toll appeal deadlines for non‑debtors
Whether relatedness or affiliation between the petitioned‑debtor and parties in the state action triggers stay protection for those parties	Havens suggested parties affiliated with Skybridge were effectively covered by the stay	Respondents maintained affiliation is insufficient; stay attaches only to the named debtor	Court held mere affiliation or a claimed joint venture does not trigger the automatic stay as to non‑debtors

Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, 129 Nev. 343 (2013) (Nevada Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction; burden on party invoking jurisdiction)
Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525 (2001) (party invoking appellate jurisdiction bears burden to establish it)
Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686 (1987) (untimely notice of appeal does not vest jurisdiction)
Edwards v. Ghandour, 123 Nev. 105 (2007) (automatic bankruptcy stay tolling applies only to the debtor engaged in the bankruptcy)
Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343 (6th Cir. 1993) (automatic stay does not stay actions against non‑debtor defendants)
Maritime Elec. Co. v. United Jersey Bank, 959 F.2d 1194 (3d Cir.) (automatic stay not available to non‑debtors despite related legal nexus)
Ingersoll‑Rand Financial Corp. v. Miller Mining Co., 817 F.2d 1424 (9th Cir.) (debtor’s automatic stay does not stay non‑debtor appeals)
Credit Alliance Corp. v. Williams, 851 F.2d 119 (4th Cir.) (automatic stay does not apply to actions against nond debtor guarantors)
In re Kmart Corp., 285 B.R. 679 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) (discussing limits of automatic stay where parties other than the named debtor are involved)