Echo Fox, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Iota Violet, LLC)

Nevada Supreme Court

Echo Fox, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Iota Violet, LLC)

DecidedApril 15, 2016

Docket69933

StatusUnpublished

This text of Echo Fox, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Iota Violet, LLC) (Echo Fox, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Iota Violet, LLC)) 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

Echo Fox, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Iota Violet, LLC), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ECHO FOX, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED No. 69933 LIABILITY COMPANY; AND NARRAMORE DOBBINS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, APR 1 5 2016 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TRACE K. UNDEMAN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE CLERK F SUPREME COURT \ BY MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, DEPUTY CLERK

Respondents, and IOTA VIOLET, LLC, AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; IOTA ROYAL, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND FIVE SPRINGS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders granting motions to enlarge the time in which to serve process and denying a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process. Having considered petitioners' arguments, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Because Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000), recognizes that a balanced and

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e multifaceted analysis is appropriate in determining whether to dismiss a complaint under NRCP 4(i), and some of the factors set forth in Scrimer support the district court's decision to grant an enlargement of time, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; Scrirner, 116 Nev. at 513, 998 P.2d at 1193-94 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

ThIZDLA ka-R Douglas

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas Ballard Spahr, LLP Schwartz Flansburg PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

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

ECHO FOX, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED No. 69933 LIABILITY COMPANY; AND NARRAMORE DOBBINS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, APR 1 5 2016 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF TRACE K. UNDEMAN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE CLERK F SUPREME COURT \ BY MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, DEPUTY CLERK

Respondents, and IOTA VIOLET, LLC, AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; IOTA ROYAL, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND FIVE SPRINGS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders granting motions to enlarge the time in which to serve process and denying a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process. Having considered petitioners' arguments, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Because Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000), recognizes that a balanced and

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e multifaceted analysis is appropriate in determining whether to dismiss a complaint under NRCP 4(i), and some of the factors set forth in Scrimer support the district court's decision to grant an enlargement of time, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; Scrirner, 116 Nev. at 513, 998 P.2d at 1193-94 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

ThIZDLA ka-R Douglas

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas Ballard Spahr, LLP Schwartz Flansburg PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Echo Fox, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Iota Violet, LLC), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/echo-fox-llc-v-dist-ct-iota-violet-llc-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack