Hooper, Iii Vs. Dist. Ct. (Hines)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 13, 2020
• Docket: 81349
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

AUBREY JAMES HOOPER, III, No. 81349 INDIVIDUALLY, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FLED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and DAVID HINES, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF STEPHENE NORMAND; ASIALYNN NORMAND, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF STEPHENE NORMAND; YOSIDONNA NORMAND, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF STEPHENE NORMAND; ALVIN NORMAND, LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR AMERICUS NORMAND, A MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS HEIR TO THE ESTATE OF STEPHENE NORMAND; DAVID HINES, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHENE NORMAND; DAVID HAUSER, INDIVIDUALLY; JASON BARATTA, INDIVIDUALLY; CULINARY LOGIC, LLC, A DOMESTIC LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY; AND HAULIN BALLS TRUCKS LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

1,11 1947A e ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(4). As a general rule, "judicial economy and sound judicial administration militate against the utilization of mandamus petitions to review orders denying motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment." State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. u. Thornpson, 99 Nev. 358, 362, 662 P.2d 1338, 1340 (1983), as modified by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 238 (2002); Buckwalter v. Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting that In]ormally this court will not entertain a writ petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismise). Although the rule is not absolute, see Inel Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 132, 142-43, 127 P.3d 1088, 1096 (2006), petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170. Interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J.

, J. AikstG Q J Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge Messner Reeves LLP SUPREME Courn OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A AB*

, Richard Harris Law Firm Holley Driggs/Las Vegas Murchison & Cumming, LLC/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A .00,..