De Roode-Wentz, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gomez)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 3, 2020
Docket80299
StatusPublished

This text of De Roode-Wentz, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gomez) (De Roode-Wentz, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gomez)) 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
De Roode-Wentz, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gomez), (Neb. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CAROLIEN DE ROODE-WENTZ, M.D.; No. 80299 AND CHILDREN'S BONE & SPINE SURGERY, LLC, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, JAN 0 3 2020 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELVABEN A. BROWN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT TIERRA DANIELLE JONES, DISTRICT DEPUTY CLERK JUDGE, Respondents, and JONATHAN GOMEZ, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioners inotion to continue trial and to take a trial deposition. Petitioners have also filed an emergency motion to stay trial pending our consideration of this petition, and real party in interest has filed an opposition. Having reviewed the parties' arguments and supporting documentation, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. See Inel Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist: Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of a legally required act or to control a manifest abuse of or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of disdretion). The district court carefully considered and weighed the competing interests underlying this matter, which is reaching the 5-year mark, and real party

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 40S94, - was in interest has offered to take a trial deposition before trial begins on Monday, or thereafter. Therefore, based on the information before us, we discern no manifest abuse of discretion so as to warrant our intervention, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.1

C.J.

/11,43a,..0 J. Stiglich

J. Silver

cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge CoHinson, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco Vannah & Vannah Eighth District Court Clerk

In light of this order, petitioners emergency stay motion is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 10) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
De Roode-Wentz, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gomez), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-roode-wentz-md-vs-dist-ct-gomez-nev-2020.