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.
Emil MORNEAULT, RPH, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Monica Trujillo, District Judge, Respondents, Patricia Ann Adams, Individually, in Her Capacity as Trustee of the Stewart Family Trust, Dated January 31, 2007, in Her Capacity as Special Administrator of the Estate of Connie Stewart and in Her Capacity as Special Administrator of the Estate of Gary Stewart; Gary Linck Stewart, Jr., an Individual; Mary Kay Fallon, an Individual; Elizabeth A. Hodge, an Individual; and Minh Nguyen, M.D., Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenged a district court order denying a motion to dismiss claims in a wrongful death action.
Petitioner seeks to “join” a writ petition filed by a codefendant below, Minh Nguyen, in a previously-filed matter, see Docket No. 83580, and “incorporate” the facts, issues presented, and arguments made in said petition. Problematically, the relief petitioner seeks is the district court's granting of his motion to dismiss the claims against him, which is not the same relief sought by Nguyen in Docket No. 83580, wherein Nguyen seeks a district court order granting his motion to dismiss filed below and the dismissal of the claims against him, not the claims against petitioner. We therefore decline to “join” petitioner's writ petition to Nguyen's writ petition in Docket No. 83580.
Further, this court's rules generally do not allow a party to endorse or incorporate by reference an issue raised in briefs filed in another case, cf. NRAP 28(e), and petitions for extraordinary relief are required to state the relief sought, issues presented, the facts necessary to understand the issues presented, and the reasons why the writ should issue, including points and legal authorities, see NRAP 21(a)(3). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NRAP 21(b); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
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. 83580
Decided: October 22, 2021
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)