The first two of these explanations are not supported by the terms of the appealed order. 2 After three months elapsed without appellant apprising this court as to the status of appellant's third or fourth explanations, we again ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. In its timely response to our second show-cause order, appellant repeated its assertions that the appealed order is a final judgment and also contended that jurisdiction over this appeal is proper under NRAP 3A(b)(3) as an appeal from an order denying an injunction.

Having considered appellant's second response, we remain unconvinced that jurisdiction over this appeal is proper, as the defect identified by this court's two orders has not been cured, and, contrary to appellant's new contention, the appealed order does not involve an injunction. Accordingly, as appellant failed to demonstrate jurisdiction, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction and that dismissal of this appeal is warranted. Thus, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

/ &ç Hardesty

1 („-,eof ta Douglas Cherry To the extent that appellant is suggesting that the district court docket entry suffices as a dismissal of all named defendants, this suggestion is without merit. Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (indicating that only a written and filed order has any effect). Likewise, because the appealed order granted "defendants' motion to dismiss," the order necessarily dismissed appellant's complaint only as to those defendants who filed a motion to dismiss. Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 444, 874 P.2d 729, 733 (1994) (recognizing that this court determines the finality of an order by looking to what the order actually does).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Rang & Associates PLLC Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A we