Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
James J. COTTER, Jr., derivatively on behalf of Reading International, Inc., Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, Respondents, Douglas McEachern; Edward Kane; Judy Codding; William Gould; Michael Wrotniak; and Reading International, Inc., Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order, in a derivative action, concluding that no genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to the disinterestedness and independence of real parties in interest and granting summary judgment in their favor.1
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only when the petitioner has no “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170; see also D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474, 168 P.3d 731, 736 (2007). The right to appeal in the future, after a final judgment is ultimately entered, generally constitutes an adequate and speedy legal remedy precluding writ relief. Id. “Whether a future appeal is sufficiently adequate and speedy necessarily turns on the underlying proceedings’ status, the types of issues raised in the writ petition, and whether a future appeal will permit this court to meaningfully review the issues presented.” Id. at 474–75, 168 P.3d at 736.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not satisfied that our extraordinary intervention is warranted, particularly in light of the upcoming trial scheduled to begin next week on the remaining claims. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.2
FOOTNOTES
1. Reading International, Inc.’s January 4, 2018, motion for leave to be added as a real party in interest is granted; the clerk of this court shall modify the caption of this proceeding to conform to the caption on this order and shall detach from the motion and file Reading International's response to emergency motion.
2. Given this disposition, petitioner's January 2, 2018, motions for a stay and to file portions of the appendix under seal are denied as moot.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 74759
Decided: January 04, 2018
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)