Echo Fox, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Iota Violet, LLC) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    ECHO FOX, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED                        No. 69933
    LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
    NARRAMORE DOBBINS, LLC, A
    WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY
    COMPANY,
    Petitioners,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    FILED
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,                               APR 1 5 2016
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF                                   TRACE K. UNDEMAN
    CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE                                CLERK F SUPREME COURT
    \
    BY
    MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE,                              DEPUTY CLERK
    Respondents,
    and
    IOTA VIOLET, LLC, AN ARIZONA
    LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; IOTA
    ROYAL, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
    LIABILITY COMPANY; AND FIVE
    SPRINGS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED
    LIABILITY COMPANY,
    Real Parties in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges
    district court orders granting motions to enlarge the time in which to serve
    process and denying a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process.
    Having considered petitioners' arguments, we are not
    persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int'l 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
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A    e
    multifaceted analysis is appropriate in determining whether to dismiss a
    complaint under NRCP 4(i), and some of the factors set forth in Scrimer
    support the district court's decision to grant an enlargement of time, the
    district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion.
    Int? Game 
    Tech., 124 Nev. at 197
    , 179 P.3d at 558; 
    Scrirner, 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.
    ThIZDLA         ka-R
    Douglas
    cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
    Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas
    Ballard Spahr, LLP
    Schwartz Flansburg PLLC
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 69933

Filed Date: 4/15/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021