Millan v. Dist. Ct. (Millan)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: December 12, 2014
• Docket: 66804
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted. Id. In particular, because some of the factors set forth in Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. „ 245 P.3d 1198, 1201 (2010), and Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000), support the district court's decision to grant the untimely motion to enlarge and to deny the motion to dismiss, the district court neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; see Saavedra-Sandoval, 126 Nev. at 245 P.3d at 1200 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion). 2 Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

Saitta

2Moreover, even if Rodriguez-Cortez lacked good cause for filing the untimely enlargement motion and for failing to timely serve process, dismissal of his third-party complaint would have been without prejudice. See NRCP 4(i). And given the applicable time limitations for the claims asserted in his complaint, see Pack v. LaTourette, 128 Nev. „ 277 P.3d 1246, 1249 (2012); Saylor v. Arcotta, 126 Nev. „ 225 P.3d 1276, 1278 (2010), Rodriguez-Cortez could have timely refiled his complaint. SUPREME COURT OF

NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (4((fDp cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Barron & Pruitt, LLP Kevin A. Sprenz H3Law - Hansen Hale & Hansen Law Offices of R.S. & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A deo