Murphy Vs. Dist. Ct. (Murphy)

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PETER MURPHY, No. 79791 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DAVID S. FILED GIBSON, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, MAR 1 8 2020 and ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SLPREME COURT

ALICIA MURPHY, BY • \/1 t Real Party in Interest. IMPLY-CY. CLERK

ORDER DISMISSING WRIT PETITION Petitioner contends that, absent a remand under Huneycutt v.

Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978), disapproved on other ground.s by Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. 49, 228 P.3d 453 (2010), the district court lacks jurisdiction to hold a calendar call and order discovery regarding real party in interest's motion to relocate while petitioner's appeal in Docket No. 78300 is pending. However, after petitioner filed this writ petition, this court ordered a Huneycutt remand. See Murphy v. Moore, Docket No. 78300 (Nov. 1, 2019, Order Granting Motion for Limited Remand and Suspending Briefing Schedule). Consequently, there is no longer any relief that this court can grant petitioner within the context of this writ petition, rendering the petition moot. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) CThis court's duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment."). We therefore dismiss this writ petition.

It is so ORDERED.

J.

Silver

cc: Hon. David S. Gibson, Jr., District Judge Cramer Law Firm Pecos Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A Art.

• 4,"