Grupo Famsa, S.A. De C v. v. Dist. Ct. (b.E. Uno, LLC)

Nevada Supreme Court

Grupo Famsa, S.A. De C v. v. Dist. Ct. (b.E. Uno, LLC)

DecidedApril 21, 2016

Docket69119

StatusUnpublished

This text of Grupo Famsa, S.A. De C v. v. Dist. Ct. (b.E. Uno, LLC) (Grupo Famsa, S.A. De C v. v. Dist. Ct. (b.E. Uno, LLC)) 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

Grupo Famsa, S.A. De C v. v. Dist. Ct. (b.E. Uno, LLC), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GRUPO FAMSA, S.A. DE C.V., A No. 69119 MEXICAN CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, APR 21 2016 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF E K. LINDEMAN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB m U

BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and RE. UNO, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court order requiring a supersedeas bond. Grupo Famsa, S.A. de C.V. (Grupo) challenges the district court's order fixing a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,000,000 in connection with a temporary stay pending resolution of its writ petition in Docket No. 68626. As the issuance of a bond is not required by rule or statute, but lies within the discretion of the trial court, we review the district court's decision to fix a bond for an abuse of discretion. See NRAP 8(a)(2)(E); see also Bowler v. Leonard, 70 Nev. 370, 386, 269 P.2d 833, 840- 41 (1954). We hold that the district court abused its discretion in fixing the $1,000,000 supersedeas bond. The bond was premised on a judgment SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Alej49 )Lo-- 1 in an earlier action to which Grupo was not a party. Although it appears Grupo may have contractually guaranteed satisfaction of that judgment, Grupo's liability has not been adjudicated and, in this instance, the supersedeas bond serves as a procedurally improper pre-judgment writ of attachment. See NRS 31.010-31.235. Accordingly, 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 order fixing the supersedeas bond.

J.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas/Las Vegas Levinson Arshonsky & Kurtz, LLP Goold Patterson Eighth Judicial District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GRUPO FAMSA, S.A. DE C.V., A No. 69119 MEXICAN CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, APR 21 2016 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF E K. LINDEMAN CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB m U

BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and RE. UNO, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court order requiring a supersedeas bond. Grupo Famsa, S.A. de C.V. (Grupo) challenges the district court's order fixing a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,000,000 in connection with a temporary stay pending resolution of its writ petition in Docket No. 68626. As the issuance of a bond is not required by rule or statute, but lies within the discretion of the trial court, we review the district court's decision to fix a bond for an abuse of discretion. See NRAP 8(a)(2)(E); see also Bowler v. Leonard, 70 Nev. 370, 386, 269 P.2d 833, 840- 41 (1954). We hold that the district court abused its discretion in fixing the $1,000,000 supersedeas bond. The bond was premised on a judgment SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Alej49 )Lo-- 1 in an earlier action to which Grupo was not a party. Although it appears Grupo may have contractually guaranteed satisfaction of that judgment, Grupo's liability has not been adjudicated and, in this instance, the supersedeas bond serves as a procedurally improper pre-judgment writ of attachment. See NRS 31.010-31.235. Accordingly, 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 order fixing the supersedeas bond.

J.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas/Las Vegas Levinson Arshonsky & Kurtz, LLP Goold Patterson Eighth Judicial District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Grupo Famsa, S.A. De C v. v. Dist. Ct. (b.E. Uno, LLC), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grupo-famsa-sa-de-c-v-v-dist-ct-be-uno-llc-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack