WYNN RESORTS LIMITED v. Thomas Dinapoli, derivatively on behalf of Wynn Resorts Limited, Real Party in Interest. (2018)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a shareholder derivative action based on failure to sufficiently plead demand futility. We decline to exercise our discretion to consider the petition. See generally Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (restating general rule that court “will not exercise [its] discretion to consider writ petitions that challenge orders of the district court denying motions to dismiss” except where (1) “considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate[ ] in favor of granting [the] petition[ ]” such as to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice, (2) “no disputed factual issues exist and, pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, the district court is obligated to dismiss an action,” or (3) “an important issue of law requires clarification”). Because we decline to entertain the petition, we deny petitioners’ motion for a stay as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

While I join in the order denying a stay, I would order an answer before deciding the writ petition and to that extent I respectfully dissent.