TRINITY RESORTS SERVICES LLC AND LUCANIA SERVICES LTD v. CENTRO DE PROMOCIONES LOS CABOS SAN LUCAS DE PLAYA GRANDE RESORT DE PLAYA GRANDE DE CABO SAN LUCAS DE PROMOTORA SOLMAR DE AND PACH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DE (2026)

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition that seeks to compel the district court to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and enter an order granting the motion to dismiss.

Real parties in interest, Centro De Promociones Los Cabos San Lucas, S.A. de C.V.; Playa Grande Resort, S.A. de C.V.; Playa Grande de Cabo San Lucas, S.A. de C.V.; Promotora Solmar, S.A. de C.V.; and Pach Property Management, S.A. de C.V. (collectively, Solmar Resorts) brought tort and contract-based claims against petitioners Lucania Services, LTD, and Trinity Resort Services, LLC. Lucania and Trinity moved to dismiss. In relevant part, Lucania asserted that Solmar Resorts lacked standing to sue, that the Nevada court lacked personal jurisdiction over Lucania, and that Solmar Resorts’ claims were subject to mandatory arbitration and forum selection clauses specifying other jurisdictions.

Solmar Resorts sells time-share memberships, which generate substantial accounts receivable. Under a contract implemented by their former director, Francisco Bulnes, Solmar Resorts entered Financial Agreements with Lucania in 2017, governed by Bahamas law and containing Bahamas arbitration provisions.

Solmar Resorts and Lucania subsequently entered Trust Agreements in 2017, which created three new receivable Trusts—one for each resort—to which the timeshare accounts receivable were irrevocably transferred. These agreements appointed FNTC America Ltd. (FNTC) as Trustee and contain New Hampshire forum and jurisdiction clauses.

After the Trusts were formed, Lucania and FNTC—as Trustee—contracted with Trinity, a Nevada LLC, to take custody of and service the timeshare accounts receivable. First, Trinity, Lucania, and FNTC entered custodial agreements for each Trust in 2019. Later that year, Trinity and Lucania entered into a services agreement. Finally, Trinity, Lucania, and FNTC entered collection agreements for each Trust in 2020. The agreements to which Trinity is a signatory (collectively, the Trinity Agreements) each contain jurisdiction and venue clauses selecting Clark County, Nevada, as the sole and exclusive venue.

After the former director's death, Solmar Resorts allegedly discovered that Lucania and Trinity wrongfully withheld proceeds generated by the accounts receivable, in large part by mishandling funds and charging unconscionable fees. Solmar Resorts brought tort, contract, and equitable claims against Lucania and Trinity in Nevada in August 2024. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to dismiss. Lucania and Trinity now petition this court for writ relief.¹

“Writ relief is an extraordinary remedy that will only issue at the discretion of this court.” State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). “Writ relief is not available, however, when an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). We generally “decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss because such petitions rarely have merit, often disrupt district court case processing, and consume an enormous amount of this court's resources.” Id. at 197-98, 179 P.3d at 558-59 (citation modified). We will only entertain such petitions “when either (1) no factual dispute exists and the district court is obligated to dismiss an action pursuant to clear authority under a statute or rule, or (2) an important issue of law needs clarification and considerations of sound judicial economy and administration militate in favor of granting the petition.” Id. at 197, 179 P.3d at 559.

Upon review of the petition and related documents, we conclude Lucania and Trinity have not demonstrated that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”). In particular, Lucania and Trinity have an adequate remedy at law in the form of an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. See NRS 38.247(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). Moreover, because the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend due process, we are not persuaded that a writ of prohibition is warranted. See Fulbright & Jaworski LLP v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. 30, 36, 342 P.3d 997, 1001 (2015). Nor can we say that mandamus relief is warranted because the district court was required to dismiss Solmar Resorts’ “action pursuant to clear authority.” Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 559 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Trinity Resort Services, LLC, was granted leave to join the petition on February 6, 2026.