Whether a federal appeals court may be divested of jurisdiction by evaluating facts of an alleged post-judgment reduction in the amount of damages and conclude Plaintiffs lacked 'standing' on appeal while simultaneously maintaining standing in the trial-court

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has recognized three immutables: 1. Appellate courts are limited to reviewing the trial court record for errors of law and do not decide issues of fact; 2. Appellate courts are limited to considering issues raised in the trial court, appealed, and briefed on appeal, based on the stage of the litigation below; and, 3. Federal courts deciding diversity cases must faithfully apply state substantive law, including protecting the right to trial by jury. Here, the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished order violates these three principles. It undermines Nevada’s insurance regulatory regime and our federalism. After thirteen years of litigation, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of standing citing no injury. Plaintiffs alleged, proved and were awarded partial damages by the trial court. The Defendant did not appeal the damages awarded. Only Plaintiff appealed, claiming: 1. additional damages alleged below flowing from Defendant’s breaches; and, 2. the court’s summary disposition took Plaintiffs’ claims from the jury. Four years into the appeal, and three years after the alleged post-judgment lapse of one item of damage, Defendants raised a substantive factual damage issue, couched as “standing” to avoid waiver. The question presented is whether a federal appeals court may be divested of jurisdiction by evaluating facts of an alleged post-judgment reduction in the amount of damages and conclude Plaintiffs lacked “standing” on appeal while simultaneously maintaining standing in the trial court.