Mhc Flamingo West, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Aqui)

Nevada Supreme Court

Mhc Flamingo West, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Aqui)

DecidedFebruary 20, 2019

Docket77970

StatusUnpublished

This text of Mhc Flamingo West, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Aqui) (Mhc Flamingo West, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Aqui)) 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

Mhc Flamingo West, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Aqui), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MHC FLAMINGO WEST, LLC, No. 77970 INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A FLAMINGO WEST, A FOREIGN LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY; REALTY SYSTEMS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION; MHC OPERATING FILED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A FOREIGN FEB 20 2 319 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC., A CLalk-OF Sitita BY-L FOREIGN CORPORATION; AND AK D EPUTY CLERK

DAVIES MOBILE HOME SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KENNETH C. CORY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ELOISA BALOIS AQUI, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting a motion to compel arbitration. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that petitioners have demonstrated that the order compelling arbitration qualifies for mandamus review. NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

I947A m-vvra3 IIT 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus "is purely discretionary with this court"); see Tallman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 713, 719, 724, 359 P.3d 113, 117-18, 122 (2015) (observing that a party seeking mandamus review of an order compelling arbitration still must show why an eventual appeal does not provide an adequate and speedy remedy "and that the matter meets the other criteria for extraordinary writ relief, i.e., that mandamus is needed 'to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion' by the district court" (quoting State ex rel. Masto v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 37, 43-44, 199 P.3d 828, 832 (2009)). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pieku J. Pickering

Orrj Parraguirre •

, J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Litchfield Cavo LLP The702Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 PR 194Th

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

MHC FLAMINGO WEST, LLC, No. 77970 INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A FLAMINGO WEST, A FOREIGN LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY; REALTY SYSTEMS, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION; MHC OPERATING FILED LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A FOREIGN FEB 20 2 319 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC., A CLalk-OF Sitita BY-L FOREIGN CORPORATION; AND AK D EPUTY CLERK

DAVIES MOBILE HOME SERVICES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KENNETH C. CORY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ELOISA BALOIS AQUI, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting a motion to compel arbitration. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that petitioners have demonstrated that the order compelling arbitration qualifies for mandamus review. NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

I947A m-vvra3 IIT 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus "is purely discretionary with this court"); see Tallman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 131 Nev. 713, 719, 724, 359 P.3d 113, 117-18, 122 (2015) (observing that a party seeking mandamus review of an order compelling arbitration still must show why an eventual appeal does not provide an adequate and speedy remedy "and that the matter meets the other criteria for extraordinary writ relief, i.e., that mandamus is needed 'to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion' by the district court" (quoting State ex rel. Masto v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 37, 43-44, 199 P.3d 828, 832 (2009)). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pieku J. Pickering

Orrj Parraguirre •

, J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge Litchfield Cavo LLP The702Firm Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 PR 194Th

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mhc Flamingo West, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Aqui), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mhc-flamingo-west-llc-v-dist-ct-aqui-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack