K-Kel, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Smith)

Nevada Supreme Court

K-Kel, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Smith)

DecidedSeptember 7, 2018

Docket72896

StatusUnpublished

This text of K-Kel, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Smith) (K-Kel, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Smith)) 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

K-Kel, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Smith), (Neb. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

K-KEL, INC., No. 72896 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE F 1 st. DAVID M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, SEP 0 7 018 and ELIZABETH A. LPCAAIN 9g sup:Emt-, RONIQUE SMITH; KRYSTAL ____>:Scer41,ar CLERX BY DEPUTY CLERK COURT

CAMPBELL; JACQUELINE FRANKLIN; AND JANE DOE DANCERS I-XII, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion for limited discovery and trial on arbitrability. On May 15, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to postpone oral argument because they had agreed to participate in settlement negotiations. Based on the parties' representations, this court granted the motion and vacated the argument scheduled in this matter. On July 17, 2018, this court directed the parties to file status report advising this court of the status of settlement negotiations. On July 31, 2018, the parties filed a joint report advising that they had reached a settlement agreement and were finalizing settlement documents. Based on that representation, this court advised the parties that the petition would be dismissed on August 27, 2018, unless the parties informed this court by SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10-; s 62.4-1 (0) I947A August 24, 2018, that the parties were not proceeding with settlement. See Johanson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. ex rel. County of Clark, 124 Nev. 245, 248, 182 P.3d 94, 96 (2008) (concluding that the decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief lies within this court's discretion). The court has received no further communication from the parties. Cause appearing, the petition is dismissed without prejudice. It is so ORDERED.

Douglas

Gibbons

,\No., fretAi n J. Hardesty

—A-kAsZ LQ J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge The Law Offices of William H. Brown, Ltd. Bighorn Law Eighth 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

K-KEL, INC., No. 72896 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE F 1 st. DAVID M. JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, SEP 0 7 018 and ELIZABETH A. LPCAAIN 9g sup:Emt-, RONIQUE SMITH; KRYSTAL ____>:Scer41,ar CLERX BY DEPUTY CLERK COURT

CAMPBELL; JACQUELINE FRANKLIN; AND JANE DOE DANCERS I-XII, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion for limited discovery and trial on arbitrability. On May 15, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to postpone oral argument because they had agreed to participate in settlement negotiations. Based on the parties' representations, this court granted the motion and vacated the argument scheduled in this matter. On July 17, 2018, this court directed the parties to file status report advising this court of the status of settlement negotiations. On July 31, 2018, the parties filed a joint report advising that they had reached a settlement agreement and were finalizing settlement documents. Based on that representation, this court advised the parties that the petition would be dismissed on August 27, 2018, unless the parties informed this court by SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10-; s 62.4-1 (0) I947A August 24, 2018, that the parties were not proceeding with settlement. See Johanson v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. ex rel. County of Clark, 124 Nev. 245, 248, 182 P.3d 94, 96 (2008) (concluding that the decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief lies within this court's discretion). The court has received no further communication from the parties. Cause appearing, the petition is dismissed without prejudice. It is so ORDERED.

Douglas

Gibbons

,\No., fretAi n J. Hardesty

—A-kAsZ LQ J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. David M. Jones, District Judge The Law Offices of William H. Brown, Ltd. Bighorn Law Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

K-Kel, Inc. v. Dist. Ct. (Smith), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-kel-inc-v-dist-ct-smith-nev-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack