China Auto Logistics, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Barna Capital Grp. Ltd)

Nevada Supreme Court

China Auto Logistics, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Barna Capital Grp. Ltd)

DecidedMarch 5, 2020

Docket80216

StatusPublished

This text of China Auto Logistics, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Barna Capital Grp. Ltd) (China Auto Logistics, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Barna Capital Grp. Ltd)) 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

China Auto Logistics, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Barna Capital Grp. Ltd), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS, INC., A No. 80216 NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, FILED Respondents, MAR 0 5 2020 and ELIZABETH A. DROWN BARNA CAPITAL GROUP LTD, A CLERK E COM' By CYPRUS ENTITY, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRS 41.520(2) and NRCP 23.1 and an order denying a motion to reconsider. As a general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); Buclewalter v. Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that "[n]ormally this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismise). Although the rule is not absolute, see Inel Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established that the issue presented by the petition would not benefit from further legal and factual development in the district court or that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case at this time. For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED without prejudice.'

Piekuuy , c.J. Pickering • , J. J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge McDonald Carano LLP/Las Vegas Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

'We further deny petitioner's motion to stay as moot. SUPREME Cougr OF Nem%

(0) 1947A 417e9D 2

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

CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS, INC., A No. 80216 NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, FILED Respondents, MAR 0 5 2020 and ELIZABETH A. DROWN BARNA CAPITAL GROUP LTD, A CLERK E COM' By CYPRUS ENTITY, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF CHINA AUTO LOGISTICS, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRS 41.520(2) and NRCP 23.1 and an order denying a motion to reconsider. As a general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); Buclewalter v. Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that "[n]ormally this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismise). Although the rule is not absolute, see Inel Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established that the issue presented by the petition would not benefit from further legal and factual development in the district court or that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case at this time. For these reasons, we ORDER the petition DENIED without prejudice.'

Piekuuy , c.J. Pickering • , J. J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge McDonald Carano LLP/Las Vegas Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

'We further deny petitioner's motion to stay as moot. SUPREME Cougr OF Nem%

(0) 1947A 417e9D 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

China Auto Logistics, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Barna Capital Grp. Ltd), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/china-auto-logistics-inc-vs-dist-ct-barna-capital-grp-ltd-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack