eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2022-09

Mereora v. Dist. Ct. (Slc Llc) ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LARISA MEREORA, AN INDIVIDUAL;                         No. 84967
THOMAS MULKINS, AN INDIVIDUAL;
NINA GROZAV, AN INDIVIDUAL; ION
NEAGU, AN INDIVIDUAL; ALISA
NEAUGU, AN INDIVIDUAL; MARIA
REYNOLDS, AN INDIVIDUAL; NNG
LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY
FILE
COMPANY, D/B/A UNIVERSAL                                SEP 9 5 2022
MOTORCARS; AND UNIVERSAL                                         k BROWN
MOTORCAR LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED                                  PROVE COURT
LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A                                         CLERK
UNIVERSAL MOTORCARS,
Petitioners,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
NADIA KRALL, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
SLC LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition
challenges district court orders denying motions to dismiss and for
summary judgment. Having considered the petition and its documentation,
we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention
is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228,
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the
burden of showing such relief is warranted); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court,
    107 Nev. 674
    , 677, 679,
    818 P.2d 849
    , 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I 947A    <0.                                                               z        -zscAz
that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole
discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally,
we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary
judgment or motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any
exception to the general rules applies here. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. u. Second
Judicial Dist. Court,
    124 Nev. 193
    , 197-98,
    179 P.3d 556
    , 558-59 (2008)
(discussing writ petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss); Smith
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    113 Nev. 1343
    , 1344-45,
    950 P.2d 280
    , 281
(1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment);
see also Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court,
    136 Nev. 678
    , 684,
    476 P.3d 1194
    , 1199 (2020) (declining to provide writ relief when the underlying issue
involved factual disputes). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
-c 216°‘                     , C.J.
Parraguirre
Cadish
at*,                ,J                                         , Sr.J.
cc:   Hon. Nadia Krall, District Judge
Hofland & Tomsheck
Enenstein Pham & Glass/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
((1) 1447A