Reynolds v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    KATHRYN REYNOLDS; AND NORMAN                           No. 70581
    GARAND,
    Petitioners,
    vs.
    NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
    CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA
    FILED
    CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO                                JUL 1 3 2016
    BUSINESS IN NEVADA; GREGORY                                TRACE K. LINDEMAN
    WILDE, A NEVADA ATTORNEY; AND                           CLERK OF UPREME COURT
    CINDY LEE STOCK, A NEVADA                              BY   6-
    DEPUTY CLER
    ATTORNEY,
    Respondents.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
    WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
    This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or
    prohibition seeks, among other things, an order directing the United
    States District Court for the District of Nevada to grant petitioners'
    motion to remand.
    Having considered the petition and the supporting documents,
    we are not persuaded that our intervention is appropriate, as this court
    lacks the authority, to order the federal district court to take or refrain
    from taking the requested actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (2012); Laguna
    Viii. Inc. v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am., 
    672 P.2d 882
    , 885 (Cal. 1983)
    (recognizing that "the federal removal statute. . . expressly prohibit[s] any
    proceeding in state court after removal and prior to remand"); see also
    Mineral Cty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res.,      
    117 Nev. 235
    ,
    242-43, 
    20 P.3d 800
    , 805 (2001) (observing that a writ of mandamus is
    available only to compel the performance of an act by an "inferior" state
    tribunal, corporation, board, or person); Gojack v. Second Judicial Dist.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 1 ,147A
    1(0 Z1 151
    -
    Court, 
    95 Nev. 443
    , 444, 
    596 P.2d 237
    , 238 (1979) (same with respect to a
    writ of prohibition); cf. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive
    Eng'rs, 
    398 U.S. 281
    , 286 (1970) ("[W]e have had in this country two
    essentially separate legal systems. Each system proceeds independently
    from the other . . . . [T]his dual system could not function if state and
    federal courts were free to fight each other for control of a particular
    case."). We therefore
    ORDER the petition DENIED.'
    Gibbons
    cc: Kathryn Reynolds
    Norman Garand
    Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno
    Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.
    'In light of our disposition of this writ petition, petitioners' July 1,
    2016, motion is denied as moot.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    e