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.
Brian A. LEMPER, D.O.; Brian A. Lemper, D.O., Ltd.; the Center for Surgical Intervention, LLC; and American Regenerative Technologies, LLC, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Mark R. Denton, District Judge, Respondents, Ideal Business Partners, Inc., Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss an interpleader action. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is purely discretionary. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). We decline to exercise that discretion in this case for two reasons. First, we are not convinced that this matter fits an exception to the general rule that this court will not exercise its discretion to consider a writ petition that challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss, particularly given that the district court's decision was without prejudice. See generally Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (acknowledging exceptions to general rule (1) “where considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate[ ] in favor of granting [the] petition[ ]” such as to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, (2) “where no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss the action,” or (3) where “an important issue of law requires clarification”). Second, the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, so petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). 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. 75916
Decided: July 20, 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)