GILLELAND v. LLC LLC (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

In this original proceeding, petitioner Bryce Gilleland seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to issue findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final decision. Gilleland filed the underlying complaint seeking resolution of a business dispute. The matter proceeded to a 19-day bench trial, which concluded in January 2024. The district court thereafter took the matter under submission. After nearly 900 days passed without a decision, and status inquiries proved unsuccessful, Gilleland filed this writ petition seeking to compel the district court to act.

This court ordered the district court judge to answer the petition. Both Judge Johnson and Gilleland have since notified this court that the judge entered a written decision. The lengthy delay between the end of trial and entry of a decision is troubling and implicates certain canons of judicial conduct, see e.g., NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.5(A) (requiring a judge to act diligently in resolving matters under submission), NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.7 (stating that judges have a responsibility to decide matters assigned to them). In light of these concerns, we refer the respondent district court judge to the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. See NCJC Canon 2, Rule 2.15 (“A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.”). Because the district court has since acted and entered a written decision, however, the relief Gilleland seeks is no longer available, and the petition is therefore moot. Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (recognizing that a case that initially presents a live controversy may be rendered moot by subsequent events). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DISMISSED.