Martz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Switch, Inc.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Martz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Switch, Inc.)

DecidedSeptember 16, 2019

Docket77437

StatusPublished

This text of Martz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Switch, Inc.) (Martz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Switch, Inc.)) 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

Martz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Switch, Inc.), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PATRICK MARTZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 77437 HERBERT SILVERBERG, AN INDIVIDUAL; YOUNGHO CHUN, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DENNIS PALKON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, sEp 1 6 NS and ELIZATIETH A. BROWN CLERK SUPREME COURT SWITCH, INC.; ROB ROY; GABRIEL BY DEPUTY CLERK NACHT; ZAREH SARRAFIAN; DONALD SNYDER; TOM THOMAS; BRYAN WOLF; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES; JEFFERIES LLC; BTIG, LLC; RAYNIOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.; STIFEL, NICOLAUIS & COMPANY, INC.; AND WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting a motion for a stay of the proceedings in a putative class action suit in deference to a putative class action suit filed in federal court asserting the same Securities Act violations against the real parties in interest. Having reviewed the parties pleadings and heard oral argument in this matter, we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its discretion such that this court's intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; State v. Eighth judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931- 32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion as a decision contrary to the evidence or established rules of law and a manifest abuse of discretion as a clearly erroneous interpretation of law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court). Accordingly we ORDER the petition DENIED.

eku J. Pickering • , J. Par aguirree." Cadish

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP Robbins Arroyo LLP O'Mara Law Firm, P.C. Johnson Fitsel, LLP Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP RM Law, P.C. Levi & Korsinsky LLP Marquis Aurbach Coffing Latham & Watkins LLP/Orange County Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas Greenberg Traurig LLP/Los Angeles Latham & Watkins LLP/Century City Latham & Watkins LLP/Washington DC Eighth District Court Clerk

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

PATRICK MARTZ, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 77437 HERBERT SILVERBERG, AN INDIVIDUAL; YOUNGHO CHUN, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DENNIS PALKON, AN INDIVIDUAL, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, sEp 1 6 NS and ELIZATIETH A. BROWN CLERK SUPREME COURT SWITCH, INC.; ROB ROY; GABRIEL BY DEPUTY CLERK NACHT; ZAREH SARRAFIAN; DONALD SNYDER; TOM THOMAS; BRYAN WOLF; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES; JEFFERIES LLC; BTIG, LLC; RAYNIOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.; STIFEL, NICOLAUIS & COMPANY, INC.; AND WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting a motion for a stay of the proceedings in a putative class action suit in deference to a putative class action suit filed in federal court asserting the same Securities Act violations against the real parties in interest. Having reviewed the parties pleadings and heard oral argument in this matter, we conclude that petitioners have not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its discretion such that this court's intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; State v. Eighth judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931- 32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion as a decision contrary to the evidence or established rules of law and a manifest abuse of discretion as a clearly erroneous interpretation of law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or rule); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court). Accordingly we ORDER the petition DENIED.

eku J. Pickering • , J. Par aguirree." Cadish

cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP Robbins Arroyo LLP O'Mara Law Firm, P.C. Johnson Fitsel, LLP Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP RM Law, P.C. Levi & Korsinsky LLP Marquis Aurbach Coffing Latham & Watkins LLP/Orange County Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas Greenberg Traurig LLP/Los Angeles Latham & Watkins LLP/Century City Latham & Watkins LLP/Washington DC Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Switch, Inc.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martz-vs-dist-ct-switch-inc-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack