Flip N Tag, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rodriguez)

Nevada Supreme Court

Flip N Tag, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rodriguez)

DecidedSeptember 12, 2019

Docket79358

StatusPublished

This text of Flip N Tag, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rodriguez) (Flip N Tag, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rodriguez)) 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

Flip N Tag, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rodriguez), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FLIP N TAG, LLC, No. 79358 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; FILED AND THE HONORABLE JAMES SEP 1 2 2019 CROCKETT, DISTRICT JUDGE, BROWN COURT Respondents, &oft. BY and DEPUTY CLERK

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a July 9, 2019, district court "minute ordee overruling petitioner's objections to a discovery commissioner's report and recommendation. Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (explaining that it is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered); NRAP 21(b)(1). Petitioner has not provided a written, file-stamped district court order, which precludes our review. See Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (providing that a minute order is not effective for any purpose). Accordingly, we deny this writ petition without prejudice to petitioner's SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA l er 3?"100 (0) 1947A ability to file a new petition challenging a written, file-stamped order, if deemed appropriate. It is so ORDERED.1

C.J.

•

, Sr. J. Douglas

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Resnick & Louis, P.C./Las Vegas De Castroverde Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

1The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 40.

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

FLIP N TAG, LLC, No. 79358 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; FILED AND THE HONORABLE JAMES SEP 1 2 2019 CROCKETT, DISTRICT JUDGE, BROWN COURT Respondents, &oft. BY and DEPUTY CLERK

GERARDO RODRIGUEZ, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a July 9, 2019, district court "minute ordee overruling petitioner's objections to a discovery commissioner's report and recommendation. Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (explaining that it is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered); NRAP 21(b)(1). Petitioner has not provided a written, file-stamped district court order, which precludes our review. See Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (providing that a minute order is not effective for any purpose). Accordingly, we deny this writ petition without prejudice to petitioner's SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA l er 3?"100 (0) 1947A ability to file a new petition challenging a written, file-stamped order, if deemed appropriate. It is so ORDERED.1

C.J.

•

, Sr. J. Douglas

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Resnick & Louis, P.C./Las Vegas De Castroverde Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

1The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 40.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Flip N Tag, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rodriguez), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flip-n-tag-llc-vs-dist-ct-rodriguez-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack