Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson)

Nevada Supreme Court

Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson)

DecidedJuly 1, 2015

Docket67273

StatusUnpublished

This text of Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson) (Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson)) 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

Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). As this court has consistently held, judicial estoppel should be applied "only when a party's inconsistent position arises from intentional wrongdoing or an attempt to obtain an unfair advantage." Delgado v. Am. Fam. Ins. Grp., 125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d 563, 567 (2009) (quotations and alteration omitted); see Marcuse v. Del Webb Cmtys., Inc., 123 Nev. 278, 287-88, 163 P.3d 462, 469 (2007) (same); Mai nor v. Nault, 120 Nev. 750, 765, 101 P.3d 308, 318 (2004) (same). The district court's application of judicial estoppel, combined with its express finding that Grand Canal had not engaged in intentional wrongdoing or attempted to obtain an unfair advantage, is thus contrary to this well- established rule of law. The district court therefore manifestly abused its discretion in concluding that Grand Canal was judicially estopped from contesting its liability to Cole Wilson. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) ("A manifest abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule." (quotations and alteration omitted)). Accordingly, our intervention is warranted, and we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to vacate its November 21, 2014, order regarding Cole Wilson's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability.

Mnfc't Parraguirre

, J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947k e DOUGLAS, J., dissenting: I am not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has an adequate remedy to challenge the perceived discrepancies in the district court's judicial estoppel analysis, as petitioner may raise those challenges in an appeal from a final judgment. NRS 34.170; Pan U. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) ("[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief."). I therefore dissent.

J.

cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge Ballard Spahr, LLP Peel Brimley LLP/Henderson Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

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

warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). As this court has consistently held, judicial estoppel should be applied "only when a party's inconsistent position arises from intentional wrongdoing or an attempt to obtain an unfair advantage." Delgado v. Am. Fam. Ins. Grp., 125 Nev. 564, 570, 217 P.3d 563, 567 (2009) (quotations and alteration omitted); see Marcuse v. Del Webb Cmtys., Inc., 123 Nev. 278, 287-88, 163 P.3d 462, 469 (2007) (same); Mai nor v. Nault, 120 Nev. 750, 765, 101 P.3d 308, 318 (2004) (same). The district court's application of judicial estoppel, combined with its express finding that Grand Canal had not engaged in intentional wrongdoing or attempted to obtain an unfair advantage, is thus contrary to this well- established rule of law. The district court therefore manifestly abused its discretion in concluding that Grand Canal was judicially estopped from contesting its liability to Cole Wilson. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) ("A manifest abuse of discretion is a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule." (quotations and alteration omitted)). Accordingly, our intervention is warranted, and we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to vacate its November 21, 2014, order regarding Cole Wilson's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Liability.

Mnfc't Parraguirre

, J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947k e DOUGLAS, J., dissenting: I am not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has an adequate remedy to challenge the perceived discrepancies in the district court's judicial estoppel analysis, as petitioner may raise those challenges in an appeal from a final judgment. NRS 34.170; Pan U. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) ("[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief."). I therefore dissent.

J.

cc: Hon. Susan Scann, District Judge Ballard Spahr, LLP Peel Brimley LLP/Henderson Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Grand Canal Shops II, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Wilson), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grand-canal-shops-ii-llc-v-dist-ct-wilson-nev-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack