Asher v. Dist. Ct. (Cantor G&W (Nevada) Holdings, L.P.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Asher v. Dist. Ct. (Cantor G&W (Nevada) Holdings, L.P.)

DecidedOctober 10, 2017

Docket73891

StatusUnpublished

This text of Asher v. Dist. Ct. (Cantor G&W (Nevada) Holdings, L.P.) (Asher v. Dist. Ct. (Cantor G&W (Nevada) Holdings, L.P.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asher v. Dist. Ct. (Cantor G&W (Nevada) Holdings, L.P.), (Neb. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOSEPH M. ASHER; AND No. 73891 BRANDYVVINE BOOKMAKING, LLC, Petitioners, VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, OCT 1 0 2017 Respondents, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK QE SUPREME COURT and BY S•V DEBUT:: CLERIC CANTOR G&W (NEVADA) HOLDINGS, L.P.; CANTOR G&W (NEVADA) HOLDINGS, L.P.; CF NOTES, LLC; AND CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION AND MOTION FOR STAY This is a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for partial summary judgment. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). But whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). And petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is typically not available when petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 17 - 314(42 197, 179 P.3d at 558. And generally, an appeal is an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. In this case, we conclude that petitioners have an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition and the motion for stay. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 8(c); Fritz Hansen A/ S v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 650, 6 P.3d 982 (2000). It is so ORDERED.

Douglas qA 79:fat Gibbons

Piedgebtu, , J.

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (m 1947A e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOSEPH M. ASHER; AND No. 73891 BRANDYVVINE BOOKMAKING, LLC, Petitioners, VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, OCT 1 0 2017 Respondents, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK QE SUPREME COURT and BY S•V DEBUT:: CLERIC CANTOR G&W (NEVADA) HOLDINGS, L.P.; CANTOR G&W (NEVADA) HOLDINGS, L.P.; CF NOTES, LLC; AND CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION AND MOTION FOR STAY This is a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion for partial summary judgment. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). But whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). And petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is typically not available when petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 17 - 314(42 197, 179 P.3d at 558. And generally, an appeal is an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. In this case, we conclude that petitioners have an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition and the motion for stay. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 8(c); Fritz Hansen A/ S v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 650, 6 P.3d 982 (2000). It is so ORDERED.

Douglas qA 79:fat Gibbons

Piedgebtu, , J.

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (m 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Asher v. Dist. Ct. (Cantor G&W (Nevada) Holdings, L.P.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asher-v-dist-ct-cantor-gw-nevada-holdings-lp-nev-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack