Imperial Credit Corporation v. Dist. Ct. (Leerad, Lp) ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                 expedite the process, and submitted their applications with a motion to
    associate counsel on April 30, 2014.      See SCR 42(3) (setting forth the
    requirements for applying for pro hac vice admission). Thereafter the
    district court denied the motion without a hearing, citing SCR 42(6)
    (making the grant or denial of a motion to associate counsel discretionary),
    but failed to otherwise explain its ruling. Petitioners' subsequent motion
    for reconsideration was denied, and this petition followed. As directed,
    both respondent, the Honorable Jessie Walsh, District Judge, and real
    parties in interest have filed answers to the petition and petitioners have
    filed a reply.
    The resolution of a motion to associate pro hac vice counsel
    rests within the district court's discretion. SCR 42(6). And a writ of
    mandamus is available to control a district court's arbitrary or capricious
    exercise of its discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second
    Judicial Dist. Court, 
    124 Nev. 193
    , 197, 
    179 P.3d 556
    , 558 (2008).
    In seeking mandamus relief, petitioners argue that Ms.
    Burnside and Mr. Hendrick met all of the requirements for pro hac vice
    admission and that petitioners did not intend to delay the underlying trial
    by seeking to associate these attorneys. Despite petitioners' repeated
    assertions, both in this court and below, that they did not want to continue
    or otherwise delay the trial, both Judge Walsh and real parties in interest
    contend that the motion to associate counsel was properly denied because
    granting the request would delay trial to the prejudice of real parties in
    interest.
    Aside from the asserted potential to delay the trial, our review
    of the documents before us reveals no other basis for denying the motion to
    associate counsel. Both Ms. Burnside and Mr. Hendrick met all of the
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A
    requirements for pro hac vice admission, as they are members in good
    standing in the jurisdictions in which they are admitted, have no
    disciplinary actions against them, and have not previously applied for pro
    hac vice admission.    See SCR 42(4) (setting forth the requirements for
    requesting pro hac vice admission); SCR 42(6)(a) (labeling more than five
    pro hac vice appearances in three years as excessive, unless special
    circumstances exist). And while Judge Walsh asserts that petitioners
    failed to demonstrate that Ms. Burnside and Mr. Hendrick were better
    able to represent them than their current counsel, SCR 42 does not
    require such a showing in order to associate pro hac vice counsel.
    While we recognize the concerns expressed by Judge Walsh
    and real parties in interest over the prejudice that would be caused by a
    potential delay in the trial, given petitioners' repeated assertions that they
    do not want to continue or otherwise delay the trial, this concern can be
    addressed through the district court's resolution of a motion for a
    continuance if petitioners make such a request. Thus, under the
    circumstances presented here, we conclude that the district court's refusal
    to allow petitioners to associate pro hac vice counsel who met all of the
    requirements for admission was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of
    discretion. See Tobacco Superstore, Inc. v. Darrough, 
    207 S.W.3d 511
    , 517
    (Ark. 2005) (holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying
    pro hac vice admission to counsel that met all state requirements for
    admission); THI Holdings, LLC v. Shattuck, 
    93 So. 3d 419
    , 423 (Fla. Dist.
    Ct. App. 2012) (providing that, while the resolution of a request for pro hac
    vice admission rests within the district court's discretion, such
    applications "should usually be granted on a pro forma basis if it is facially
    sufficient and if the attorney is a member in good standing of the bar of
    3
    another jurisdiction"); cf. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
    Court, 
    123 Nev. 44
    , 53, 
    152 P.3d 737
    , 743 (2007) (holding that a party's
    interest in being represented by counsel of its choice must be considered
    before disqualifying a party's attorney).
    Accordingly, we grant the petition. The clerk of this court
    shall issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the
    order denying the motion associate pro hac vice counsel and to instead
    enter an order granting that motion.
    It is so ORDERED.'
    J.
    Douglas
    J.
    cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
    Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas
    Rainey Legal Group, PLLC
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    'In light of our resolution of this matter, we deny as moot
    petitioners' stay motion.
    As this matter warranted our expedited consideration and decision,
    this order is being entered for the purposes of providing the parties
    immediate resolution. Because this writ petition raises important legal
    issues in need of clarification, however, an opinion in this matter will be
    forthcoming.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A