Boulevard Invest, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nazaretyan)

Nevada Supreme Court

Boulevard Invest, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nazaretyan)

DecidedJuly 9, 2021

Docket82912

StatusPublished

This text of Boulevard Invest, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nazaretyan) (Boulevard Invest, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nazaretyan)) 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

Boulevard Invest, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nazaretyan), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BOULEVARD INVEST, LLC; JDK No. 82912 SELECT, INC., D/B/A HALO BAR, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUL 0 9 2021 DAVID M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN Respondents, CLERK Of; EME COURT BY and NARINE NAZARETYAN, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available, despite the petitioner's argument that writ relief would be an easier or quicker remedy); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment); see also Walker, 476 P.3d at 1199 (declining to provide writ relief when the underlying issue involved factual disputes). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

, C.J. Hardesty

J. Parraguirre

Sr.J. Gibbon

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge Law Office of Kumen L. Taylor McKay Law Firm Chtd. H&P Law, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 4E00

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

BOULEVARD INVEST, LLC; JDK No. 82912 SELECT, INC., D/B/A HALO BAR, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUL 0 9 2021 DAVID M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN Respondents, CLERK Of; EME COURT BY and NARINE NAZARETYAN, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available, despite the petitioner's argument that writ relief would be an easier or quicker remedy); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment); see also Walker, 476 P.3d at 1199 (declining to provide writ relief when the underlying issue involved factual disputes). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

, C.J. Hardesty

J. Parraguirre

Sr.J. Gibbon

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge Law Office of Kumen L. Taylor McKay Law Firm Chtd. H&P Law, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 4E00

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Boulevard Invest, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nazaretyan), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boulevard-invest-llc-vs-dist-ct-nazaretyan-nev-2021.

Opinion

J. Parraguirre

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack