Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Bell)

Nevada Supreme Court

Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Bell)

DecidedMarch 27, 2019

Docket78407

StatusUnpublished

This text of Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Bell) (Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Bell)) 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

Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Bell), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CANYON GATE AT LAS VEGAS, INC., No. 78407 D/B/A CANYON GATE COUNTRY CLUB; AND CLUBCORP HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MAR 27 2019 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. BROWN JAMES CROCKETT, DISTRICT CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY JUDGE, DEPUTY CLE Respondents, and ELIZABETH BELL, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original, emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a January 10, 2019, district court order granting a motion to exclude evidence of a liability waiver. Mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, available only when the petitioner has no "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. The right to appeal in the future, after a final judgment is entered, generally constitutes an adequate and speedy legal remedy precluding writ relief. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736 (2007) (describing the considerations in determining whether an appeal can provide an adequate remedy); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth

let-13waq Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) ("A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal."). Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that our intervention is warranted. Trial is scheduled to begin next week, and petitioners' ability to appeal from any adverse final judgment resulting therefrom precludes extraordinary relief. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider this writ petition. D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737 (recognizing this court's broad discretion in determining whether to consider a writ petition), and we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

Stiglich

Silver

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Barron & Pruitt, LLP Injury Lawyers of Nevada 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

CANYON GATE AT LAS VEGAS, INC., No. 78407 D/B/A CANYON GATE COUNTRY CLUB; AND CLUBCORP HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MAR 27 2019 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. BROWN JAMES CROCKETT, DISTRICT CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY JUDGE, DEPUTY CLE Respondents, and ELIZABETH BELL, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original, emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a January 10, 2019, district court order granting a motion to exclude evidence of a liability waiver. Mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, available only when the petitioner has no "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. The right to appeal in the future, after a final judgment is entered, generally constitutes an adequate and speedy legal remedy precluding writ relief. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736 (2007) (describing the considerations in determining whether an appeal can provide an adequate remedy); see also Archon Corp. v. Eighth

let-13waq Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017) ("A writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal."). Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that our intervention is warranted. Trial is scheduled to begin next week, and petitioners' ability to appeal from any adverse final judgment resulting therefrom precludes extraordinary relief. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider this writ petition. D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737 (recognizing this court's broad discretion in determining whether to consider a writ petition), and we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

Stiglich

Silver

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Barron & Pruitt, LLP Injury Lawyers of Nevada Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Canyon Gate at Las Vegas, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Bell), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canyon-gate-at-las-vegas-inc-v-dist-ct-bell-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack