Reddy Ice Corp. v. Gill, 82109

Background:

Appellants Reddy Ice Corporation and Gallagher Bassett Services appealed from a district court order that denied their motion for reconsideration, to alter judgment, and/or to amend findings.
On initial screening, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an order to show cause because the appeal appeared to present jurisdictional defects: the challenged order may not be substantively appealable.
The district court had remanded part of the matter for further administrative proceedings (to resolve whether respondent provided proper notice under NRS 617.342 and 617.346(2) and thus whether respondent’s claim for benefits should be accepted).
Appellants argued their postjudgment motion did not seek rehearing or re-review of substantive matters and contended the remand addressed only an insignificant ancillary issue.
The Supreme Court analyzed whether (1) an order denying a motion to reconsider/alter/amend is appealable and (2) whether a remand to an administrative agency is a final, appealable order. The court concluded the order was not substantively appealable and dismissed the appeal.
The court’s show-cause order suspended certain appellant filing deadlines and the court took no action on appellant’s separate extension request regarding transcript-certification deadlines.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an order denying a motion for reconsideration/ to alter or amend is appealable	Motion did not seek rehearing or substantive re-review; thus appealable	Order denying such motions is not a substantive final appealable order	Denied: such orders are not substantively appealable; appeal dismissed
Whether a notice of appeal can be construed to challenge the underlying remand order	Notice may be construed as appealing the underlying order granting the petition for review	Underlying remand here is not a final judgment because it remands for further administrative proceedings	Denied: the remand was not a final appealable judgment and thus cannot be appealed now
Whether a district-court remand to an administrative agency is appealable when it requires the agency to consider additional evidence/notice issues	Appellants asserted remand addressed only an insignificant ancillary issue and thus was effectively final	Respondent’s claim acceptance depends on administrative compliance; remand requires substantive agency action	Remand that sends matter back for substantive administrative resolution is not appealable unless the district order is final on the merits
Whether collateral administrative tasks (e.g., calculating benefits) convert a remand into a final, appealable order	Appellants argued remand was for collateral tasks only	Court explained only remands limited to purely collateral tasks are nonappealable; remands for substantive reconsideration are likewise nonfinal	Held: remand here required substantive administrative proceedings; not appealable

Key Cases Cited

Uniroyal Goodrich Tire v. Mercer, 111 Nev. 318, 890 P.2d 785 (1995) (orders denying motions to alter or amend are not appealable)
Alvis v. State, 99 Nev. 184, 660 P.2d 980 (1983) (denial of rehearing is not appealable)
Ayala v. Caesars Palace, 119 Nev. 232, 71 P.3d 490 (2003) (remand to agency is not a final judgment unless district court resolves the merits)
RTTC Comm'ns, LLC v. Saratoga Flier, Inc., 121 Nev. 34, 110 P.3d 24 (2005) (procedural guidance on construing notices of appeal and finality)
A A Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 245 P.3d 1190 (2010) (clarifies standards for remand finality)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. O'Brien, 129 Nev. 679, 310 P.3d 581 (2013) (remand to administrative agency is not appealable unless order is final)