IN RE: K.-L. V. (FAMILY)

Key holdings

• -The notice of appeal filed in Docket No. 92916 should have been filed in Docket No. 92865 as a second notice of appeal because the appellant is appealing from the same orders in both cases.
• -The clerk is directed to transfer the notice of appeal filed in Docket No. 92916 to Docket No. 92865 and to administratively close Docket No. 92916.
• -No action will be taken on the motion to consolidate filed in Docket No. 92916 because the appellant already filed a motion to consolidate in Docket No. 92865.

Practitioner summary

This is an administrative order, not a merits disposition. The court identified a docketing redundancy: two appeals - Docket No. 92865 (docketed June 25, 2026) and Docket No. 92916 (docketed July 7, 2026) - arose from the appellant's challenge to the same orders. Upon further review of the notices of appeal filed in Docket No. 92916, the court concluded that the notice of appeal should have been filed in Docket No. 92865 as a second notice of appeal. The court directed the clerk to transfer the notice of appeal filed in Docket No. 92916 to the appeal in Docket No. 92865 and to administratively close the appeal in Docket No. 92916. Because the appellant had already filed a motion to consolidate his appeals in Docket No. 92865, the court stated that no action would be taken on the motion to consolidate filed in Docket No. 92916. The order cites no statutes, rules, constitutional provisions, or case authority, and applies no articulated standard of review or doctrinal framework.

In plain language

This is a short administrative order from the Nevada Supreme Court cleaning up a paperwork situation, not a decision about the merits of anyone's case. Khari Sekou V. was trying to appeal court orders in a family matter involving three minors. Because of how his paperwork was filed, the same appeal ended up creating two separate case files in the Supreme Court - one numbered 92865 and one numbered 92916. When the court looked closely, it found that the notice of appeal filed in the second case file (92916) was really just a second copy relating to the same orders already being challenged in the first case file (92865). To fix the duplication, the court ordered its clerk to move the notice of appeal from the second file into the first file, and to close the second file for administrative purposes. The court also noted that the appellant had already filed a motion to combine his appeals in the first case file (92865), so it decided it did not need to act on a separate combination request that had been filed in the second file (92916). In plain terms: the case is not being decided here. The court is consolidating everything into one docket so the appeal can proceed in a single place.

Counsel of record

Counsel is shown when the opinion or the court's docket names it.