Ace Cab Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Lang)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: February 19, 2020
• Docket: 80510
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ACE CAB LLC, A DOMESTIC No. 80510 LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY; AND TIBEBU GEBREMICHAEL, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JOSEPH HARDY, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ROBERT J. LANG, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN OF; IVANA LANG, A MINOR; ANTONIO LANG, A MINOR; REBECCA LANG, AN INDIVIDUAL; DANIEL LANG, AN INDIVIDUAL; FRANCISCO LANG, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF LIDIA YUEJUN LANG, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, prohibition challenges a district court order granting real parties in interests partial motion for summary judgment in a tort matter. This court has original jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's 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 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A zo- (2007). As a general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders [granting] motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as rnodified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); see also In re Irrevocable Trust Agreement of 1979, 130 Nev. 597, 601, 331 P.3d 881, 884 (2014) (noting this court generally declines to exercise its discretion to consider petitions challenging orders granting summary judgment). Although the rule is not absolute, see Inel Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Aoki. C.J. Pickering

Hardesty , J. Cadish CgiK

cc: Hon. Joseph Hardy, Jr., District Judge Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP/Las Vegas

'In light of this order, we vacate the order granting petitioners motion for submission of video exhibit "D" to petitioners' petition for a writ of mandamus, entered on February 18, 2020. SUPREME Com OF NEVADA

(0) I947A offefo 2 Wheeler Trigg & O'Donnell LLP Shook & Stone, Chtd. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I 947A .4nit. 3

1 IM