First American Title Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nelson)

Nevada Supreme Court

First American Title Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nelson)

DecidedApril 16, 2020

Docket80772

StatusPublished

This text of First American Title Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nelson) (First American Title Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nelson)) 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

First American Title Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nelson), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE No. 80772 COMPANY; AND NEVADA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JAMES B.C. NELSON; AND 6221 RED PINE TRUST, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders denying motions to allow discovery and for reconsideration in an insurance breach of policy and bad faith action. Having considered petitioners arguments and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). In particular, petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that the decision here fits within the narrow exceptions under which writ relief may be warranted despite the availability of an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170; Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court 134 Nev. 6, 10, 408 P.3d 566, 570 (2018) (emphasizing that "generally this court will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying discovery, as such discretionary rulings typically may be adequately redressed on direct appeal from an adverse final judgment"); SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 15,47A AP., r+-141511- Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 843-844 (2004) (providing that petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted and observing that an appeal from a final judgment is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Parraguirre

/ P62-Zt\ ,J Hardesty

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Gerrard Cox & Larsen James S. Kent Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A aifjbfr,

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

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE No. 80772 COMPANY; AND NEVADA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JAMES B.C. NELSON; AND 6221 RED PINE TRUST, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders denying motions to allow discovery and for reconsideration in an insurance breach of policy and bad faith action. Having considered petitioners arguments and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). In particular, petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that the decision here fits within the narrow exceptions under which writ relief may be warranted despite the availability of an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170; Okada v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court 134 Nev. 6, 10, 408 P.3d 566, 570 (2018) (emphasizing that "generally this court will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying discovery, as such discretionary rulings typically may be adequately redressed on direct appeal from an adverse final judgment"); SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 15,47A AP., r+-141511- Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 843-844 (2004) (providing that petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted and observing that an appeal from a final judgment is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Parraguirre

/ P62-Zt\ ,J Hardesty

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Gerrard Cox & Larsen James S. Kent Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A aifjbfr,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

First American Title Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Nelson), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-american-title-ins-co-vs-dist-ct-nelson-nev-2020.

Opinion

J. Parraguirre

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack