LAS VEGAS DRAGON HOTEL LLC v. III (2022)

Supreme Court of Nevada.

LAS VEGAS DRAGON HOTEL, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Alpine Motel Apartments, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Maria A. Gall, District Judge, Respondents, Deborah Cihal Crawford, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Tracy Ann Cihal; John Doe Administrator, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Tracy Ann Cihal; Diane Roberts, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Donald Keith Bennett; Mia Lucilee Bennett, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Donald Keith Bennett, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Diane Roberts; Donald Roberts, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Donald Keith Bennett; John Doe Administrator, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Donald Keith Bennett; Francis Lombardo, III, Individually and as Heir to the Estate of Francis Lombardo, Jr.; John Doe Administrator, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Francis Lombardo, Jr.; Richard Aikens; Michelle Aikens; Michael Aikens, a minor by and through his natural parents, Richard Aikens and Michelle Aikens; Brianna Aikens, a minor by and through her natural parents, Richard Aikens and Michelle Aikens; Dejoy Wilson; Johnathan Wilson; Retor Jones, Jr.; Helen Clark; Victor Cotton; Christina Farinella; Hailu Addis; Denicia Johnson; Paul Wise; Carman McCandless; Paralee Minter; Audrey Palmer; Sara Rachal; Kelvin Salyers; Joe Aguilera; Dayshena Thomas; Andrew Thomas, a minor by and through his natural parent, Dayshena Thomas; Sandra Jones; Tiacherell Dotson; A'layna Dotson, by and through her natural parent, Tiacherell Dotson; Clea Roberts; Nelson Blackburn; Floyd Guenther; Doyle Myers; Laura Edwards; Roy Backhus; Jimmy Brown-Lacy; Delmarkas Combs; Charles Couch; Stephanie Couch; Ashley Rogers, a minor by and through her natural parent, Cheryl Rogers; Cheryl Rogers; Matthew Sykes; Thelma Sykes; David Barbara; Eddie Ellis; C. Eugene Frazier; Jeremy Gordon Scotti Hughes; Tommy Calderilla; and Karen Kelly, Clark County Public Guardian for Christian Spangler, Real Parties in Interest.

No. 85081

Decided: August 18, 2022

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP Panish Shea & Boyle, LLP/Las Vegas Eglet Adams Murdock & Associates, Chtd. Leach Kern Gruchow Anderson Song/Las Vegas

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a tort action.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted for several reasons. To begin, petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. This court typically will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss, especially where, as here, issuance of the requested writ relief would not dispose of the entire action. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 824-25, 407 P.3d 702, 709-10 (2017). Further, our extraordinary intervention is not warranted given the substantial amount of time that has elapsed since the district court issued the order being challenged, petitioner's failure to provide an explanation for its delay in seeking writ relief, and petitioner's failure to include records in its appendix that are essential to this court's understanding of the matters set forth in the petition, including records pertaining to the procedural posture of the proceedings below. See NRAP 21(a)(4). 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