Panjwani v. Dist. Ct. (Maxwell) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    NEVEED PANJWANI,                                      No. 69986
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
    FILED
    CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC                              APR 1 5 2016
    JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE,                                   TRACE K. LINDEMAN
    Respondents,                                            CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
    gy      .
    and                                                         DEPUTY CLERK
    ASHLEY MAXWELL,
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a
    district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to
    timely serve process.
    Having considered petitioner's arguments, we are not
    persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int? Game Tech.,
    Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 
    124 Nev. 193
    , 197, 
    179 P.3d 556
    , 558
    (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228, 
    88 P.3d 840
    ,
    844 (2004). Because Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 
    116 Nev. 507
    , 516, 
    998 P.2d 1190
    , 1195-96 (2000), recognizes that a balanced and
    multifaceted analysis is appropriate in determining whether to dismiss a
    complaint under NRCP 4(i), and because some of the factors set forth in
    Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 
    126 Nev. 592
    , 596, 
    245 P.3d 1198
    , 1201 (2010), and Scrimer support the district court's decision to
    grant the untimely motion to enlarge the time for service and to deny
    petitioner's motion to dismiss, the district court did not arbitrarily or
    capriciously exercise its discretion. Int? Game 
    Tech., 124 Nev. at 197
    , 179
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) (947R   0
    1So- 1..!8‘g
    P.3d at 558; see 
    Saavedra-Sandoval, 126 Nev. at 596
    , 245 P.3d at 1201
    (providing that upon a showing of good cause, the district court may
    enlarge the time for service of process); 
    Scrimer, 116 Nev. at 513
    , 998 P.2d
    at 1193-94 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP
    4(i) are within the district court's discretion). We therefore
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    J.
    Douglas
    cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge
    Hawkins Melendrez, P.C.
    Golightly & Vannah, PLLC/Las Vegas
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    10) 15)41A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 69986

Filed Date: 4/15/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021