Blue Lake Holdings Grp., Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Frimet)

Nevada Supreme Court

Blue Lake Holdings Grp., Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Frimet)

DecidedOctober 22, 2021

Docket83109

StatusPublished

This text of Blue Lake Holdings Grp., Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Frimet) (Blue Lake Holdings Grp., Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Frimet)) 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

Blue Lake Holdings Grp., Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Frimet), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BLUE LAKE HOLDINGS GROUP, INC., No. 83109 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE OCT 2 2021 KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT A. BROWN JUDGE, PREME COUR BY Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK

and ROBERT FRIMET; RMF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.; METASPOT, INC.; NEWCO CHECK INC.; AND ADVANTAGE CHECK CASHING LLC, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION

This original petition seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to rule on a bench trial. Real parties in interest have filed an answer joining in the request for writ relief, and petitioner has filed a reply. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 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 (2007). "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." Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). The petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is SUPREME COURT OP warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, NEVADA

iCh 1947A `f 2 iš25O and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition, we are persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Petitioner lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy because it cannot appeal due to the absence of a ruling by the district court. Further, writ relief is warranted given the district court's failure to timely issue a ruling, an act required as a duty of the court. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to issue a written ruling regarding the bench trial within 30 days of this order.

, C.J. Hardesty

44;t5C4-0 , J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Law Offices of Mark Wray HLC Legal Ltd. Leah Martin Law Eighth District Court Clerk

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

BLUE LAKE HOLDINGS GROUP, INC., No. 83109 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE OCT 2 2021 KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT A. BROWN JUDGE, PREME COUR BY Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK

and ROBERT FRIMET; RMF CONSULTING GROUP, INC.; METASPOT, INC.; NEWCO CHECK INC.; AND ADVANTAGE CHECK CASHING LLC, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION

This original petition seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to rule on a bench trial. Real parties in interest have filed an answer joining in the request for writ relief, and petitioner has filed a reply. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 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 (2007). "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." Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). The petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is SUPREME COURT OP warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, NEVADA

iCh 1947A `f 2 iš25O and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition, we are persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Petitioner lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy because it cannot appeal due to the absence of a ruling by the district court. Further, writ relief is warranted given the district court's failure to timely issue a ruling, an act required as a duty of the court. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to issue a written ruling regarding the bench trial within 30 days of this order.

, C.J. Hardesty

44;t5C4-0 , J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Law Offices of Mark Wray HLC Legal Ltd. Leah Martin Law Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Blue Lake Holdings Grp., Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Frimet), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-lake-holdings-grp-inc-vs-dist-ct-frimet-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack