Mgm Grand Hotel, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Fonseth-Schlossberg)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: October 29, 2019
• Docket: 79769
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MGM GRAND HOTEL, LLC, A No. 79769 NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A MGM GRAND HOTEL AND CASINO, D/B/A GRAND GARDEN ARENA, INCLUSIVE, FILE Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT U. A. .7W.OINN

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, CLE BY IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KENNETH C. CORY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and KAREN FONSETH-SCHLOSSEiERG, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges an October 11, 2019, district court order denying MGM Grand Hotel, LLC's motion to disqualify opposing counsel in a tort action. We have reviewed the petition and the supporting documentation and we deny writ relief. The district court considered the evidence presented by the parties, addressed the three prongs set forth

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(C)) 1947A by this court in Waid v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 121 Nev. 605, 609-10, 119 P.3d 1219, 1222-23 (2005), and concluded that MGM Grand failed to demonstrate that Kylee L. Gloeckner's prior representation of MGM Grand was in a matter substantially related to the litigation at issue here. In reaching its determination, the district court correctly concluded "that a superficial similarity between two matters is not sufficient to warrant disqualification." See Waid, 121 Nev. at 610, 119 P.3d at 1223 (stating "that a superficial resemblance between matters is not sufficient; 'rather, the focus is properly on the precise relationship between the present and former representation). Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the district court manifestly abused its discretion when it denied MGM Grand's motion to disqualify. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 44, 54, 152 P.3d 737, 743 (2007) (noting that the district court is entitled to deference because it is more familiar with the facts of the case and in the best position to determine whether disqualification is appropriate). Thus, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is wairanted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an

(0) 1947A 454ED. 2

MIK extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition).1 Accordingly we, ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Picke ing

Parraguirre

Cefi/A, J. Cadish

Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Christian, Kravitz, Dichter, Johnson & Slugga, PLLC/Las Vegas Nettles Morris Eighth District Court Clerk

lIn light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's motion for stay peilding writ of mandamus and vacate the temporary stay ordered by this court on October 10, 2019.

(0) 1947A 4Sp. 3

111r, 197477-11111.