NUVEDA LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY v. DOTAN MELECH RECEIVER FOR CWNEVADA LLC NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMAPNY AND SHANE TERRY AN INDIVIDUAL (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ mandamus challenges an oral district court ruling denying a motion to dismiss for failure to bring consolidated actions to trial within five years per NRCP 41(e).

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of a legally required act or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Whether to consider a writ petition is wholly within this courts discretion. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991).

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted). In particular, petitioner has not demonstrated that, upon consolidation, the cases below were merged into one action for purposes of mandatory dismissal under NRCP 41(e). See Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 77 (2018) (recognizing that, historically, consolidated cases were viewed as retaining their separate identities and concluding that, although district courts enjoy substantial discretion in determining the extent of consolidation, “constituent cases retain their separate identities” for appeal purposes); In re of Est. of Sarge, 134 Nev. 866, 870-71, 432 P.3d 718, 722 (2018) (relying on Hall in determining that “[c]onsolidated cases retain their separate identifies so that an order resolving all of the claims in one of the consolidated cases is immediately appealable”); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty., 416 P.2d 492, 496 (Cal. 1966) (noting that, regarding California's analogous mandatory dismissal rule, “individual actions brought by plaintiffs should be treated as distinct even though they have been consolidated, and the time for bringing each action to trial should be measured from the time that particular action was filed”). Accordingly, mandamus relief is not available, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Stiglich, J.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot.