Nine Group II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (B in It, LLC) ( 2014 )

 retained new counsel, but nonetheless argues that the petition is not moot
because issues remain pending regarding whether real party in interest
benefitted from its prior counsel's use of allegedly confidential information
belonging to petitioner.
But here, petitioner's writ petition merely challenges the
district court's refusal to disqualify real party in interest's former counsel.
And because real party in interest has changed counsel, any issues
regarding the propriety of the district court's decision in this regard are
now moot. Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. , 245 P.3d 572,
574 (2010) (noting that this court does not generally consider moot issues).
To the extent that petitioner now wishes to raise issues regarding real
party in interest's former counsel's alleged use of petitioner's supposedly
confidential information in the context of this petition, any such issues are
not properly before this court absent the district court's consideration of
these issues in the first instance. See NRS 34.170 (noting that mandamus
relief is available only when petitioner has no speedy and adequate legal
remedy available). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition.
It is so ORDERED. 1
ses-ttn3/4 J.
Hardesty
Ova J.
Douglas Cherry
'In light of this order, we deny as moot all pending motions in this
matter.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(Cl) 1947A em
cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
Carbajal & McNutt, LLP
The Quinlan Law Firm, LLC
Mainor Wirth
Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A mem