Lopez v. Dist. Ct. (u.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n)

Nevada Supreme Court

Lopez v. Dist. Ct. (u.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n)

DecidedJune 15, 2018

Docket75656

StatusUnpublished

This text of Lopez v. Dist. Ct. (u.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n) (Lopez v. Dist. Ct. (u.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n)) 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

Lopez v. Dist. Ct. (u.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n), (Neb. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CYNTHIA LOPEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 75656 AND LBB INVESTMENTS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FfiLED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LYON; JUN 1 5 2018 AND THE HONORABLE LEON A. BROWN 2AiiSORT RE ABERASTURI, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, EPUTY CLERZ

and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR SPRINGLEAF MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2013-1; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION; SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS, LLC; AND ASSURANT FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternative, prohibition challenges a district court order granting partial summary judgment in a contract and tort action. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, SUPFIEMECOLIFIT OF NEVADA 'gent ry° ) I 947 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, petitioners have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (explaining that a party may challenge an interlocutory order in the context of an appeal from a final judgment); see also NRAP 3A(b)(1); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

, J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge Bradley Paul Elley Tiffany & Bosco, P. A. Springel & Fink Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Third District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 194(A

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

CYNTHIA LOPEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 75656 AND LBB INVESTMENTS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, vs. THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FfiLED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LYON; JUN 1 5 2018 AND THE HONORABLE LEON A. BROWN 2AiiSORT RE ABERASTURI, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, EPUTY CLERZ

and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR SPRINGLEAF MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2013-1; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION; SOLUTIONSTAR HOLDINGS, LLC; AND ASSURANT FIELD ASSET SERVICES, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternative, prohibition challenges a district court order granting partial summary judgment in a contract and tort action. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, SUPFIEMECOLIFIT OF NEVADA 'gent ry° ) I 947 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, petitioners have an adequate remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (explaining that a party may challenge an interlocutory order in the context of an appeal from a final judgment); see also NRAP 3A(b)(1); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

, J. Hardesty

cc: Hon. Leon Aberasturi, District Judge Bradley Paul Elley Tiffany & Bosco, P. A. Springel & Fink Akerman LLP/Las Vegas Third District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 194(A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lopez v. Dist. Ct. (u.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lopez-v-dist-ct-us-bank-natl-assn-nev-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack