Fore Stars, Ltd. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Binion)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: February 25, 2020
• Docket: 79959
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FORE STARS, LTD., A NEVADA No. 79959 LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; 180 LAND CO., LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND SEVENTY ACRES, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED FILE LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. ELIZA THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CLERK BY COURT OF THE •STATE OF NEVADA, DEPUTY CLERK

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JACK B. BINION, AN INDIVIDUAL; DUNCAN R. LEE AND IRENE LEE, INDIVIDUALS AND TRUSTEES OF THE LEE FAMILY TRUST; FRANK A. SCHRECK, AN INDIVIDUAL; TURNER INVESTMENTS, LTD., A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; ROGER P. WAGNER AND CAROLYN G. WAGNER, INDIVIDUALS AND TRUSTEES OF THE WAGNER FAMILY TRUST; BETTY ENGLESTAD, AS TRUSTEE OF THE BETTY ENGLESTAD TRUST; PYRAMID LAKE HOLDINGS, LLC; JASON AWAD AND SHEREEN AWAD, AS TRUSTEES OF THE AWAD ASSET PROTECTION TRUST; THOMAS LOVE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ZENA TRUST; STEVE THOMAS AND KAREN THOMAS, AS TRUSTEES OF THE STEVE AND KAREN THOMAS TRUST; SUSAN SULLIVAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE KENNETH J. SULLIVAN FAMILY TRUST; DR. GREGORY BIGLER; AND SUPREME COM, OF SALLY BIGLER, NEVADA Real Parties in Interest. (0) 1947A (4tfetiw• -24o oiLff2-

II Old 41i ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a declaratory relief action. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, petitioners did not provide this court with a copy of a written order memorializing the challenged district court ruling, see Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that an oral ruling is ineffective for any purpose), and we are not otherwise persuaded that petitioners arguments regarding the district court's denial of their summary judgment motion warrants our extraordinary intervention. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and that the right to appeal is an adequate legal remedy that may preclude writ relief); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (noting that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment motions). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich

J. , Sr. J . Cadish Saitta

2 cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge EHB Companies, LLC Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Las Vegas Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 10) 1947A

1111111•11EINIME