Pro Petroleum, Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Larsen) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    PRO PETROLEUM, LLC; RIP GRIFFIN                         No. 83536
    TRUCK SERVICE CENTER, INC.; AND
    DAVID YAZZIE, JR.,
    Petitioners,
    vs.                                             FILED
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                 FEB 1 1 2022
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF                                    ELIZABETH A. BROWN
    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
    CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE                                 BY
    SUSAN JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE,                                 DEP • CLERK
    Respondents,
    and
    DAKOTA JAMES LARSEN,
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
    This original writ petition challenges a district court order
    compelling a physical examination of real party in interest under NRCP 35
    and NRS 52.380. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan
    Johnson, Judge.
    Petitioners assert• in their petition that, to the extent the
    district court allowed recording of the examination and an observer under
    NRS 52.380, the order should be stricken, as NRS 52.380 unconstitutionally
    conflicts with NRCP 35. Real party in inteiest moves to dismiss the petition
    as moot. In particular, real party in interest notes that: (1) the examination
    with the conditions to which petitioners objected has occurred, such that no
    effective relief remains that this court can grant; and (2) the conflict
    asserted between NRS 52.380 and NRCP 35 has been resolved by Lyft, Inc.,
    v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 86, 
    501 P.3d 994
     (2021).
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A
    og?-044 (pay
    "[T]he duty of every judicial tribunal is to decide actual
    controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give
    opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
    principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." Univ.
    and Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 
    120 Nev. 712
    , 720,
    
    100 P.3d 179
    , 186 (2004) (quoting NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 
    97 Nev. 56
    , 57,
    
    624 P.2d 10
    , 10 (1981). As a result, this court has long recognized that cases
    which present live controversies at their inception may be rendered moot by
    subsequent events. 
    Id.
    Having reviewed the papers presented in the petition and the
    motion to dismiss, we conclude the matter is moot and not the proper subject
    for a writ of mandamus.     See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136
    Nev. Adv. Op. 80, 
    476 P.3d 1194
    , 1198-99 (2020). Accordingly, the motion
    to dismiss is granted and this court
    ORDERS this petition DISMISSED.
    ift ie A )   , J.
    Silver
    , J.                             Piaeu      , J.
    Cadish                                        Pickering
    cc:   Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge
    Grant & Associates
    Claggett & Sykes Law Firm
    SUPREME COURT         Eighth District Court Clerk
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) I907A
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 83536

Filed Date: 2/11/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/14/2022