Gong v. Dist. Ct. (Federal National Mort. Assoc.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Gong v. Dist. Ct. (Federal National Mort. Assoc.)

DecidedAugust 15, 2013

Docket63734

StatusUnpublished

This text of Gong v. Dist. Ct. (Federal National Mort. Assoc.) (Gong v. Dist. Ct. (Federal National Mort. Assoc.)) 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

Gong v. Dist. Ct. (Federal National Mort. Assoc.), (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

(2004); NRAP 21(c) (providing that a petition for an extraordinary writ other than prohibition or mandamus generally shall be sought in the same manner as a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus). Having reviewed the petition and its supporting documentation, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ relief is not warranted as petitioners have an adequate legal remedy available in the form of an appeal from the district court order denying their petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus. See NRS 34.020(2); Ashokan v. State, Dep't. of Ins., 109 Nev. 662, 665-66, 856 P.2d 244, 246 (1993) (explaining that this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

/ J. Hardesty

Parraguirre

J.

"In light of this order, we deny petitioner's August 14, 2013, emergency motion for a stay as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Tory M. F'ankopf Pite Duncan, LLP Carson City Clerk

(0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(2004); NRAP 21(c) (providing that a petition for an extraordinary writ other than prohibition or mandamus generally shall be sought in the same manner as a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus). Having reviewed the petition and its supporting documentation, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ relief is not warranted as petitioners have an adequate legal remedy available in the form of an appeal from the district court order denying their petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus. See NRS 34.020(2); Ashokan v. State, Dep't. of Ins., 109 Nev. 662, 665-66, 856 P.2d 244, 246 (1993) (explaining that this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'