Blue Martini Lv v. Dist. Ct. (Reichardt)

Nevada Supreme Court

Blue Martini Lv v. Dist. Ct. (Reichardt)

DecidedMarch 15, 2013

Docket62557

StatusUnpublished

This text of Blue Martini Lv v. Dist. Ct. (Reichardt) (Blue Martini Lv v. Dist. Ct. (Reichardt)) 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 Martini Lv v. Dist. Ct. (Reichardt), (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and appendix, we decline to intervene with regard to the imposition of the discovery sanction, as, to the extent that petitioner is aggrieved, it will have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any final judgment entered in the district court action. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief). Accordingly, we deny the petition. 1 See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 (explaining that the decision as to whether to grant writ relief is within this court's discretion). It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons

' J. "TN 1 Doudas Ii

_AV J. Saitta

'Although petitioner stated in the petition that it was also seeking relief from the district court's decision excluding certain evidence from the trial as to damages, no argument was set forth as to this issue, and thus, we decline to address it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (explaining that this court need not consider claims that are not cogently argued or supported by relevant authority).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2 cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Phillips, Spallas & Angstadt, LLC G. Dallas Horton & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

(0) 1947A 3 1

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

Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and appendix, we decline to intervene with regard to the imposition of the discovery sanction, as, to the extent that petitioner is aggrieved, it will have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from any final judgment entered in the district court action. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief). Accordingly, we deny the petition. 1 See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 (explaining that the decision as to whether to grant writ relief is within this court's discretion). It is so ORDERED.