Dignity Health Vs. Dist. Ct. (Arteaga)

Nevada Supreme Court

Dignity Health Vs. Dist. Ct. (Arteaga)

DecidedJune 24, 2020

Docket81099

StatusPublished

This text of Dignity Health Vs. Dist. Ct. (Arteaga) (Dignity Health Vs. Dist. Ct. (Arteaga)) 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

Dignity Health Vs. Dist. Ct. (Arteaga), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DIGNITY HEALTH, A FOREIGN NON- No. 81099 PROFIT CORPORATION; DIGNITY HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP NEVADA, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED- LIABILITY COMPANY; ROGER A. MARTINEZ, M.D.; AND ROGER A. MARTINEZ, M.D., PLLC, Petitioners, vs. FILE THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUN 2 4 2020 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ELLIABETH A. BROWN IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

AND THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ay < •Yr ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and MONICA ARTEAGA, AN INDIVIDUAL; BENJAMIN SCHNOSE, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND CAIN G. SCHNOSE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, MONICA ARTEAGA AND BENJAMIN SCHNOSE, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice action.'

1 The clerk of this court shall amend the caption of this docket to reflect the caption on this order, consistent with the joinder filed on May 8, 2020. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ADD olo—A3L1342- Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that petitioners have demonstrated that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss). In particular, we are not persuaded that an appeal from an adverse final judgment would be an inadequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that an appeal from a final judgment is generally an adequate remedy that precludes writ relief). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

p n , .. , Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Alverson Taylor & Sanders Nettles Morris Janet, Janet & Suggs/Columbia SC Janet, Janet & Suggs/Baltimore Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 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

DIGNITY HEALTH, A FOREIGN NON- No. 81099 PROFIT CORPORATION; DIGNITY HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP NEVADA, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED- LIABILITY COMPANY; ROGER A. MARTINEZ, M.D.; AND ROGER A. MARTINEZ, M.D., PLLC, Petitioners, vs. FILE THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUN 2 4 2020 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ELLIABETH A. BROWN IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; CLERK OF SUPREME COURT

AND THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ay < •Yr ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and MONICA ARTEAGA, AN INDIVIDUAL; BENJAMIN SCHNOSE, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND CAIN G. SCHNOSE, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, MONICA ARTEAGA AND BENJAMIN SCHNOSE, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice action.'

1 The clerk of this court shall amend the caption of this docket to reflect the caption on this order, consistent with the joinder filed on May 8, 2020. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ADD olo—A3L1342- Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that petitioners have demonstrated that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss). In particular, we are not persuaded that an appeal from an adverse final judgment would be an inadequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that an appeal from a final judgment is generally an adequate remedy that precludes writ relief). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

p n , .. , Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Alverson Taylor & Sanders Nettles Morris Janet, Janet & Suggs/Columbia SC Janet, Janet & Suggs/Baltimore Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dignity Health Vs. Dist. Ct. (Arteaga), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dignity-health-vs-dist-ct-arteaga-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack