Flisser, P.T. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Hawk, Jr.)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: February 7, 2020
• Docket: 80475
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LAWRENCE FLISSER, P.T., No. 80475 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED WILLIAM D. KEPHART, DISTRICT FEB 0 7 2020 JUDGE, Respondents, and DEPUTY CLERK LEWIS EUGENE HAWK, JR.; AND LAS VEGAS PAIN INSTITUTE AND MEDICAL CENTER, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action, as well as the district court's decision to permit real party in interest, Lewis Eugene Hawk, Jr., to amend his complaint. As a general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thornpson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as rnodified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002). Although the rule is not absolute, see Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 44510. -os•303 Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. For these reasons, we • ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Pickering

/LA. 4,41 n , J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. William D. Kephart, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Thomas E. Crowe John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

(0) 1447A .(Itepp 2