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.
Shalini BHATIA, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable David M. Jones, District Judge, Respondents, William Nathan Baxter, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered petitioner's arguments and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted.1 NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 81.8 P.2d. 849, 851 (1991). In particular, we perceive no reason to deviate from our general policy of declining to consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions for summary judgment, see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280. 281 (1997), as the underlying action has been pending since 2013 in district court and has an imminent trial setting, and it appears that the legal issues raised in the petition may be refined during further pretrial proceedings or at trial and that those issues may be adequately reviewed on an appeal from a final judgment, see Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Petitioner did not include in her appendix a copy of the summary judgment order she challenges in this writ petition, which provides an additional basis for denying writ relief. NRAP 21(a)(4). While her petition cites to the order, the appendix contains a different order, which is not challenged in the petition.On April 16, 2018, Dignity Health filed a motion to join this writ petition. Dignity Health was not included in petitioner's summary judgment motion, and nothing in the appendix shows that Dignity Health later joined in the motion. While Dignity Health states that the rulings challenged in this petition affect Dignity Health, petitioner challenges the order denying her summary judgment, not the rulings set forth in Dignity Health's motion to join the petition. Thus, we deny the motion to join.
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. 75429
Decided: April 30, 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)