Corner Inv. Co., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sweeney)

Nevada Supreme Court

Corner Inv. Co., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sweeney)

DecidedMarch 9, 2021

Docket82319

StatusPublished

This text of Corner Inv. Co., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sweeney) (Corner Inv. Co., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sweeney)) 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

Corner Inv. Co., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sweeney), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CORNER INVESTMENT COMPANY, No. 82319 LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A THE CROMWELL, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN MAR 0 9 2021 AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; ELIZAB k CROWN CLERK OF UPREIAE COU AND THE HONORABLE CRISTINA D. EY SILVA, DISTRICT JUDGE, Di CLERK

Respondents, and CHRISTINE SWEENEY; JENNIFER RILEY; LAUREN SWEENEY; LARRY SWEENEY, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTINE SWEENEY, DECEASED; AND LARRY SWEENEY AND KATHERINE M. GONDRA, AS CO-SPECIAL ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTINE SWEENEY, DECEASED, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for partial summary judgment in a tort and wrongful death matter. Having considered the petition and the supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that petitioner made the required strong showing to invoke mandamus relief. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (outlining conditions requisite to traditional mandamus, which include that petitioner has a legal right to the act the petition seeks to compel, respondent has a plain duty to perforrn such act, and the absence of an alternate legal remedy). As a general rule subject to very few exceptions, we have declined to exercise our discretion with respect to writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary judgment motions. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). We decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because plaintiffs claims are set for trial this month and because the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, such that petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; see also Moore v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 415, 416-17, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (declining to issue writ relief when doing so would not resolve the entire underlying controversy). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

je4at,.0 , J. Stiglich

0.-1,LeAD Silver

cc: Hon. Cristina D. Silva, District Judge Brandon Smerber Law Firm Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Nettles Morris Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 () 1947A 442g1m.

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

CORNER INVESTMENT COMPANY, No. 82319 LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A THE CROMWELL, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN MAR 0 9 2021 AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; ELIZAB k CROWN CLERK OF UPREIAE COU AND THE HONORABLE CRISTINA D. EY SILVA, DISTRICT JUDGE, Di CLERK

Respondents, and CHRISTINE SWEENEY; JENNIFER RILEY; LAUREN SWEENEY; LARRY SWEENEY, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND HEIRS OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTINE SWEENEY, DECEASED; AND LARRY SWEENEY AND KATHERINE M. GONDRA, AS CO-SPECIAL ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF CHRISTINE SWEENEY, DECEASED, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for partial summary judgment in a tort and wrongful death matter. Having considered the petition and the supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that petitioner made the required strong showing to invoke mandamus relief. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (outlining conditions requisite to traditional mandamus, which include that petitioner has a legal right to the act the petition seeks to compel, respondent has a plain duty to perforrn such act, and the absence of an alternate legal remedy). As a general rule subject to very few exceptions, we have declined to exercise our discretion with respect to writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary judgment motions. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). We decline to deviate from that rule here, particularly because plaintiffs claims are set for trial this month and because the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment, such that petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy that precludes writ relief. NRS 34.170; see also Moore v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 415, 416-17, 610 P.2d 188, 189 (1980) (declining to issue writ relief when doing so would not resolve the entire underlying controversy). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

je4at,.0 , J. Stiglich

0.-1,LeAD Silver

cc: Hon. Cristina D. Silva, District Judge Brandon Smerber Law Firm Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Nettles Morris Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 () 1947A 442g1m.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Corner Inv. Co., Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sweeney), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corner-inv-co-llc-vs-dist-ct-sweeney-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack