Faber Vs. Dist. Ct. (Ad Distribs., Llc)

Nevada Supreme Court

Faber Vs. Dist. Ct. (Ad Distribs., Llc)

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided August 3, 2021·No. 83302·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RUSSELL FABER, No. 83302 Petitioner, vs. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NADIA KRALL, DISTRICT JUDGE, FILED Respondents, AUG 0 3 2O21 and ELIZABETH A. BROWN DISTRIBUTIONS, LLC, D/I3/A BLACK CLER)9J SUPREME COURT & CHERRY REAL ESTATE AND BY PVUTY L RK LfA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, A DOMESTIC LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY, DULY AUTHORIZED AND LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN HENDERSON. CLARK COUNTY. NEVADA; TIMOTHY DENISON. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DENISON REVOCABLE TRUST; AND DIANE S. DENISON INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DENISON REVOCABLE TRLTST, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district- court order granting, in part. a motion in iimine and allowing real parties .in interest to present evidence of spoliation at trial. Raving considered the petit.on aficl its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth 341.70; NRS 34.330; Walker v. Second judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 11.94. 1198 (2020) (recognizing that a later appeal generally constitutes an adequate and speedy remedy at law, even when an interlocutory mandamus action would be easier or quicker). Moreover, the issues raised in this petition are largely factual and better resolved on a fully developed record. See Walker, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d at 1199 (declining to provide writ relief when the underlying issue involved factual disputes). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

, J. Cadish

.Herndon

'We have considered petitioner's August 2, 2021, motion to supplement, which informs that trial has been rescheduled for September. Nevertheless, in light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Nadia .Krall, District Judge George T. Bochanis, Ltd. Claggett & Sykes Law Firm Shumway Van Dennett Winspear, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 ly-17A

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

RUSSELL FABER, No. 83302 Petitioner, vs. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NADIA KRALL, DISTRICT JUDGE, FILED Respondents, AUG 0 3 2O21 and ELIZABETH A. BROWN DISTRIBUTIONS, LLC, D/I3/A BLACK CLER)9J SUPREME COURT & CHERRY REAL ESTATE AND BY PVUTY L RK LfA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, A DOMESTIC LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY, DULY AUTHORIZED AND LICENSED TO DO BUSINESS IN HENDERSON. CLARK COUNTY. NEVADA; TIMOTHY DENISON. INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DENISON REVOCABLE TRUST; AND DIANE S. DENISON INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE DENISON REVOCABLE TRLTST, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district- court order granting, in part. a motion in iimine and allowing real parties .in interest to present evidence of spoliation at trial. Raving considered the petit.on aficl its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth 341.70; NRS 34.330; Walker v. Second judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 11.94. 1198 (2020) (recognizing that a later appeal generally constitutes an adequate and speedy remedy at law, even when an interlocutory mandamus action would be easier or quicker). Moreover, the issues raised in this petition are largely factual and better resolved on a fully developed record. See Walker, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d at 1199 (declining to provide writ relief when the underlying issue involved factual disputes). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

, J. Cadish

.Herndon

'We have considered petitioner's August 2, 2021, motion to supplement, which informs that trial has been rescheduled for September. Nevertheless, in light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Nadia .Krall, District Judge George T. Bochanis, Ltd. Claggett & Sykes Law Firm Shumway Van Dennett Winspear, LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 ly-17A

Faber Vs. Dist. Ct. (Ad Distribs., Llc), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Faber Vs. Dist. Ct. (Ad Distribs., Llc) (Faber Vs. Dist. Ct. (Ad Distribs., Llc)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related