eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2022-06

Hong v. Dist. Ct. (Lynn) ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOSEPH HONG, AN INDIVIDUAL;                               No. 84714
AND HONG & HONG, APLC, D/B/A
HONG & HONG LAW FIRM, AN
UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY
OPERATING AS A LAW FIRM IN
NEVADA, A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION,
FILED
Petitioners,                                              JUN U 2022
vs.
A. BROWN
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT                                       EME COURT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                     CLERK
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
JESSICA K. PETERSON, DISTRICT
JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
DENISE LYNN; AND DESERT
SHELTERS, LLC,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging
a district court order denyliig a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 16.1(e).
"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of
an act that the law requires . . . or to control an arbitrary or capricious
exercise of discretion." Int'l Gctme Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court,
    124 Nev. 193
    , 197,
    179 P.3d 556
    , 558 (2008); see NRS 34.160. This court
has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of
such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev.
Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    123 Nev. 468
    , 474-75,
    168 P.3d 731
    , 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A    aCSADOD                                                                .1    - I "-ti3
show that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court,
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228,
    88 P.3d 840
    , 841 (2004). As a general rule,
"judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the
utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to
dismiss and motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Transp.
v. Thompson,
    99 Nev. 358
    , 362,
    662 P.2d 1338
    , 1340 (1983), as modified by
State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Anzalone),
    118 Nev. 140
    , 147,
    42 P.3d 233
    , 238 (2002); Buckwalter v. Dist. Court,
    126 Nev. 200
    , 201,
    234 P.3d 920
    ,
921 (2010) (noting that "[n]ormally this court will not entertain a writ
petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss"). Although the rule
is not absolute, see Int? Garne Tech., 122 Nev. at 142-43, 127 P.3d at 1096,
petitioner has not established the district court manifestly abused its
discretion. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
-PA„,L06.ike
rraguirre
e -J.
/ ArA.txri_zt           ,J                   A/4C4--0             ,   J.
Hardesty                                   Stiglich
cc:   Hon. Jessica K. Peterson, District Judge
Lipson Neilson P.C.
Accelerated Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
Of
NEVADA
2
(Of I947A    .6111PPC.