Moti Partners, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Desert Palace, Inc.)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 22, 2021
Docket82448
StatusPublished

This text of Moti Partners, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Desert Palace, Inc.) (Moti Partners, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Desert Palace, 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
Moti Partners, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Desert Palace, Inc.), (Neb. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MOTI PARTNERS, LLC; MOTI No. 82448 PARTNERS 16, LLC; LLTQ ENTERPRISES, LLC; LLTQ ENTERPRISES 16, LLC; TPOV ENTERPRISES, LLC; TPOV ENTERPRISES 16, LLC; FERG, LLC; FERG 16, LLC; AND R SQUARED FILE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF DNT OCT 2 2 2021 ACQUISTION, LLC, ELIZABETH A. BROWN Petitioners, CLERK IF ZUPREIIE COURT , . sy ir vs. mi( ow ac)--'`' THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY C. WILLIAMS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and DESERT PALACE, INC.; PARIS LAS VEGAS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; PHWLV, LLC; AND BOARDWALK REGENCY CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order granting a motion to strike. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus directing the district court to (1) vacate its order granting real parties in interest's motion to strike petitioners amended counterclaims, and (2) deny the motion.

02 ) - 3 05 07 The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is discretionary. Davis v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 116, 118, 294 P.3d 415, 417 (2013). "The writ will not issue . . . if a petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." Id. "The right to immediately appeal or even to appeal in the future, after a final judgment is ultimately entered, will generally constitute an adequate and speedy legal remedy precluding writ relief." D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474, 168 P.3d 731, 736 (2007). Petitioners retain appellate rights, see NRAP 3A(b)(1), and therefore have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Thus, we decline to entertain the petition. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J. Hardesty

17,,gLitte Al4G-1-g , J. Parraguirre Stiglich • J. J. Cadish Silver

Herndon

'In light of this order denying writ relief, we lift the stay previously ordered by this court on April 16, 2021. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10) 1947A allYID cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Bailey Kennedy Pisanelli Bice, PLLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 ,0) I947A

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Moti Partners, Llc Vs. Dist. Ct. (Desert Palace, Inc.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moti-partners-llc-vs-dist-ct-desert-palace-inc-nev-2021.