SHAC LLC v. IV (2019)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This matter comes before the court on an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus arising out of a class-action complaint asserting constitutional and other minimum-wage-based claims. Having reviewed the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is appropriate. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; see MDC Rests., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 41, 419 P.3d 148, 151 (2018). To discuss aggregation without considering the 2019 amendments to NRCP 23—which the district court did not consider and the parties do not discuss—seems more likely to complicate than clarify the law. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 708 (2017) (holding that advisory mandamus should only issue to address “the rare question” that is fully developed and likely to recur without interlocutory review). At the same time, the status of Jane Doe Dancer I and the components of her and the other class representatives’ claims are unclear. See Buckwalter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting this court does not entertain writ petitions challenging denial of motions to dismiss that are fact-bound). Accordingly, and without opining on the merits of the arguments presented, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.