McGee & McGee Wine Merch.'s, LLC v. Jam Cellars, Inc.

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 17, 2017
Docket70172
StatusUnpublished

This text of McGee & McGee Wine Merch.'s, LLC v. Jam Cellars, Inc. (McGee & McGee Wine Merch.'s, LLC v. Jam Cellars, 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
McGee & McGee Wine Merch.'s, LLC v. Jam Cellars, Inc., (Neb. 2017).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MCGEE & MCGEE WINE No. 70172 MERCHANTS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY D/B/A SAPPHIRE FAMILY OF WINES, Appellant, vs. F/ ED JAM CELLARS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND JOHN ANTHONY VINEYARDS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Respondents.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is an appeal from a district court order denying a preliminary injunction. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Scott N. Freeman, Judge. To obtain a preliminary injunction, "the moving party must show that there is a likelihood of success on the merits and that the nonmoving party's conduct, should it continue, would cause irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law." Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., Div. of Water Res. v. Foley, 121 Nev. 77, 80, 109 P.3d 760, 762 (2005). Having reviewed the parties' arguments and the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the preliminary injunction. See Labor Comm'r of State of Nev. v. Littlefield, 123 Nev. 35, 38, 153 P.3d 26, 28 (2007) (providing that a decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the district court). In particular, while appellants clearly requested a preliminary injunction hearing, appellants do not explain on appeal what material facts required elucidation by live testimony. 11A Charles Alan SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) !947A Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil, § 2949, at 249 (2013) (explaining that while an evidentiary hearing is typically appropriate, a preliminary-injunction motion may be decided on "written evidence when no conflict about the facts requires illumination by live testimony"). Accordingly, we ORDER the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction AFFIRMED.

Pickering

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge Bradley Drendel & Jeanney Guild, Gallagher & Fuller, Ltd. Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Las Vegas Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP/Reno Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 frn I 94 7A

In ..91-4 4IA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Department of Conservation & Natural Resources v. Foley
109 P.3d 760 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2005)
Labor Commissioner v. Littlefield
153 P.3d 26 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McGee & McGee Wine Merch.'s, LLC v. Jam Cellars, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgee-mcgee-wine-merchs-llc-v-jam-cellars-inc-nev-2017.