HOOPER III v. LLC LLC (2020)

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Aubrey James HOOPER, III, Individually, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Nancy L. Allf, District Judge, Respondents, David Hines, Individually, and as Heir To the Estate of Stephene Normand; Asialynn Normand, Individually, and as Heir To the Estate of Stephene Normand; Yosidonna Normand, Individually, and as Heir To the Estate of Stephene Normand; Alvin Normand, Legal Guardian for Americus Normand, a Minor, Individually, and as Heir To the Estate of Stephene Normand; David Hines, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Stephene Normand; David Hauser, Individually; Jason Baratta, Individually; Culinary Logic, LLC, a Domestic Limited-Liability Company; and Haulin Balls Trucks LLC, a Foreign Limited-liability Company, Real Parties in Interest.

No. 81349

Decided: July 13, 2020

Messner Reeves LLP Richard Harris Law Firm Holley Driggs/Las Vegas Murchison & Cumming, LLC/Las Vegas

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(4).

As a general rule, “judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.” State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); Buckwalter v. Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that “[n]ormally this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss”). Although the rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law