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.
PALOMINO CLUB, LLC, a domestic limited liability company, d/b/a Palomino Club; Hachiman, LLC, a domestic limited liability company; Adam Gentile, an individual; Craig Parks, an individual; and Lacy's LLC, d/b/a Lacy's, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge, Respondents, Alexander Potasi, an individual; and Derek Fesolai, an individual, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a tort action as to claims against petitioners Palomino Club, LLC, Hachiman, LLC, Adam Gentile, and Craig Parks.
Having considered the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted, as an adequate remedy exists in the form of an appeal from any adverse final judgment. Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) (explaining historical predicates for issuing writs of mandamus and prohibition, which are limited and do not include controlling a trial court's decision in a discretionary, interlocutory matter that can be reviewed on appeal from the final judgment); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991); see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344–45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss); Moore v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 415, 417, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (determining that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy when resolution of the writ petition would not dispose of the entire controversy, since the avoidance of a needless trial is not possible). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
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. 74646
Decided: February 15, 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)