Howard & Howard Attorneys Pllc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sunridge Corp.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Howard & Howard Attorneys Pllc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sunridge Corp.)

DecidedMarch 9, 2021

Docket82259

StatusPublished

This text of Howard & Howard Attorneys Pllc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sunridge Corp.) (Howard & Howard Attorneys Pllc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sunridge Corp.)) 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

Howard & Howard Attorneys Pllc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sunridge Corp.), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS No. 82259 PLLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PILE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 11/4 1AR 0 9 2021 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE Euzke A. BROWN OF UPREME COURT CLE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, BY TY CLERK DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and SUNRIDGE CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges district court orders denying summary judgment in a legal malpractice and unjust enrichment action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgrnent, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Parraguirre

A•C%-$G4-12 Stiglich

,J Silver

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Kernp, Jones, LLP Hejmanowski & McCrea LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

1 1n light of our decision, we deny as moot petitioner's February 5, 2021, motion seeking to stay the district court proceedings. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A 0400v

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

HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS No. 82259 PLLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PILE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 11/4 1AR 0 9 2021 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE Euzke A. BROWN OF UPREME COURT CLE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, BY TY CLERK DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and SUNRIDGE CORPORATION, A NEVADA CORPORATION, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges district court orders denying summary judgment in a legal malpractice and unjust enrichment action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgrnent, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Parraguirre

A•C%-$G4-12 Stiglich

,J Silver

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Kernp, Jones, LLP Hejmanowski & McCrea LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

1 1n light of our decision, we deny as moot petitioner's February 5, 2021, motion seeking to stay the district court proceedings. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A 0400v

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Howard & Howard Attorneys Pllc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sunridge Corp.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-howard-attorneys-pllc-vs-dist-ct-sunridge-corp-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack