Garcia v. Dist. Ct. (State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.)
This text of Garcia v. Dist. Ct. (State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.) (Garcia v. Dist. Ct. (State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.)) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
GABRIEL GARCIA, No. 69772 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MAR 1 8 2016 ELISSA F. CADISH, DISTRICT JUDGE, TR CIE K. LMIDEMAN Respondents, CLERK4JFAUPREME COURT BY -yo and DEPUTY CLERK I STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; AND JOYCE KING, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order dismissing, for failure to state a viable claim, the portion of a complaint seeking to renew a judgment against real party in interest Joyce King. Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. A writ of mandamus is available to compel legally-required action by an inferior state tribunal, but the writ generally will not issue when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Mineral Cty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., 117 Nev. 235, 242-43, 20 P.3d 800, 805 (2001). Here, petitioner has indicated that, after King was dismissed, the underlying case was removed to the federal district court. As a result, the respondent district court lacks jurisdiction, and petitioner's remedy properly lies with the
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) '947A - 0 8&3 5 federal court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(d) and 1450 (2012); Ackerman v. ExxonMobil Corp., 734 F.3d 237, 249 (4th Cir. 2013); Laguna Viii., Inc. v. Laborers' Intl Union of N. Am., 672 P.2d 882, 885 (Cal. 1983). Accordingly, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted or appropriate, Mineral Cty., 117 Nev. 235, 20 P.3d 800 (denying a writ petition out of deference to the proper, federal court forum), and we ORDER the petition DENIED.
Ao_A Hardesty
J. Saitta
Pieith AI) , J. Pickering
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Christensen Law Offices, LLC Harper Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 0
taaal
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Garcia v. Dist. Ct. (State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garcia-v-dist-ct-state-farm-mutual-auto-ins-co-nev-2016.