Inpatient Consultants of Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Baxter)

Nevada Supreme Court

Inpatient Consultants of Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Baxter)

DecidedApril 30, 2018

Docket75432

StatusUnpublished

This text of Inpatient Consultants of Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Baxter) (Inpatient Consultants of Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Baxter)) 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

Inpatient Consultants of Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Baxter), (Neb. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

INPATIENT CONSULTANTS OF No. 75432 NEVADA, INC., A MEDICAL CORPORATION; SHALINI BHATIA, DO.; JESSICA GORDON, DO.: NERTE JAMISON, DNP; DIGNITY HEALTH, D/B/A ST. ROSE DOMINICAN HOSPITAL-SIENA CAMPUS; AND FILED BRIAN TAPMAN, M.D., APR 30 2] Petitioners, vs. CL ANZZrF Fkki9 RaiRT THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEPUTY CLERK

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DAVID M. JONES. DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and WILLIAM NATHAN BAXTER, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered petitioners' arguments and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677; 818 P,2d. 849, 851 (1991). In particular, we perceive no reason to deviate from our general policy of declining to consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions for summary judgment, see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997), as the underlying action has been pending since 2013 in district SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 194Th 1r- IP 2-4/ 0 ;r .v.:4111111111Eiti , court and has an imminent trial setting, and it appears that the legal issues raised in the petition may be refined during further pretrial proceedings or at trial and that those issues may be adequately reviewed on an appeal from a final judgment, see Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENTED.'

C.J.

_LILA AAA_ Hardesty

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd. Kenneth M. Sigelman & Associates Christiansen Law Offices Eighth District Court Clerk

'We grant Dignity Health's April 16 and Brian Lipman, NI.D.'s April 24 motions to join this writ petition. The clerk of the court shall modify the caption on the docket for this case to conform to the caption of this order.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

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

INPATIENT CONSULTANTS OF No. 75432 NEVADA, INC., A MEDICAL CORPORATION; SHALINI BHATIA, DO.; JESSICA GORDON, DO.: NERTE JAMISON, DNP; DIGNITY HEALTH, D/B/A ST. ROSE DOMINICAN HOSPITAL-SIENA CAMPUS; AND FILED BRIAN TAPMAN, M.D., APR 30 2] Petitioners, vs. CL ANZZrF Fkki9 RaiRT THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEPUTY CLERK

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DAVID M. JONES. DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and WILLIAM NATHAN BAXTER, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered petitioners' arguments and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677; 818 P,2d. 849, 851 (1991). In particular, we perceive no reason to deviate from our general policy of declining to consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions for summary judgment, see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997), as the underlying action has been pending since 2013 in district SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 194Th 1r- IP 2-4/ 0 ;r .v.:4111111111Eiti , court and has an imminent trial setting, and it appears that the legal issues raised in the petition may be refined during further pretrial proceedings or at trial and that those issues may be adequately reviewed on an appeal from a final judgment, see Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENTED.'

C.J.

_LILA AAA_ Hardesty

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd. Kenneth M. Sigelman & Associates Christiansen Law Offices Eighth District Court Clerk

'We grant Dignity Health's April 16 and Brian Lipman, NI.D.'s April 24 motions to join this writ petition. The clerk of the court shall modify the caption on the docket for this case to conform to the caption of this order.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Inpatient Consultants of Nevada, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Baxter), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inpatient-consultants-of-nevada-inc-v-dist-ct-baxter-nev-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack