CASCADE DRINKING WATERS v. CENTRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, 88 Nev. 702 (1972)

504 P.2d 697

No. 6910Supreme Court of Nevada.
December 29, 1972

Appeal from Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph S. Pavlikowski, Judge.

Lee Beasley, of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Rose Norwood, Ltd., of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

Page 703

OPINION
Per Curiam:

This appeal is from an order granting a motion to dismiss, to the respondents, Central Telephone Co., and General Telephone Directory Co. Three defendants were named in the appellant’s complaint. The two respondents to this appeal were involved in only two of the three causes of action.

It appears from the record that matters other than those appearing on the complaint were considered and that the motion to dismiss was treated as a motion for summary judgment. NRCP 56. Nowhere in the order of the court below is there an “express determination that there is no just reason for delay,” as required by NRCP 54(b)[1] before an appeal can be taken where multiple parties are involved.

This court has held that a judgment dismissing fewer than all parties to an action without an express determination that there is no just reason for delay by the district court is not a final judgment appealable under NRCP 72(b)(1). Hill v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Hwys., 86 Nev. 37, 464 P.2d 468 (1970); Donoghue v. Rosepiler, 83 Nev. 251, 427 P.2d 956 (1967); Aldabe v. Evans, 83 Nev. 135, 425 P.2d 598 (1967); Wilmurth v. State, 79 Nev. 490, 387 P.2d 251 (1963).

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to reinstate it or to appeal any other issues it may have after final determination of the complaint in civil action A 95819 in the court below.

It is so ordered.

Page 704