Cabada Vs. Dist. Ct. (Richardson)

Nevada Supreme Court

Cabada Vs. Dist. Ct. (Richardson)

DecidedAugust 12, 2021

Docket83230

StatusPublished

This text of Cabada Vs. Dist. Ct. (Richardson) (Cabada Vs. Dist. Ct. (Richardson)) 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

Cabada Vs. Dist. Ct. (Richardson), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TH E STATE OF NEVADA

OSCAR CABADA, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 83230 AND JOSE ALBERTO CABADA- OROZCO, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TARA D. CLARK NEWBERRY, DISTRICT AUG 1 1 2021 JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT S Respondents, BY DEPUTYC>C1CtiVI RK and PETER RICHARDSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION .FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order partially granting a motion to strike a rebuttal expert. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4: D.R. Horton, inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 4-68, 474-75. 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy

at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev, 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 84.0, 841., 844 (2004.). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

I947A .4610 nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal frorn a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Further, 'Wins court has held that the decision to adrnit or exclude expert opinion testimony is discretionary and is not typically subject to review on a petition for a writ of mandamus." Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011). Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

"C:24.13"142.31.1rflim7J. Parraguirre Cadish

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell. :131414C/Las Vegas Drummond Law Firm Law Office of Lee J. Grant II 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 TH E STATE OF NEVADA

OSCAR CABADA, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 83230 AND JOSE ALBERTO CABADA- OROZCO, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TARA D. CLARK NEWBERRY, DISTRICT AUG 1 1 2021 JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT S Respondents, BY DEPUTYC>C1CtiVI RK and PETER RICHARDSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION .FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order partially granting a motion to strike a rebuttal expert. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4: D.R. Horton, inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 4-68, 474-75. 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy

at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev, 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 84.0, 841., 844 (2004.). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

I947A .4610 nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal frorn a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Further, 'Wins court has held that the decision to adrnit or exclude expert opinion testimony is discretionary and is not typically subject to review on a petition for a writ of mandamus." Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court. 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011). Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

"C:24.13"142.31.1rflim7J. Parraguirre Cadish

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge Bauman Loewe Witt & Maxwell. :131414C/Las Vegas Drummond Law Firm Law Office of Lee J. Grant II Eighth District Court Clerk

•

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cabada Vs. Dist. Ct. (Richardson), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cabada-vs-dist-ct-richardson-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack