Narach, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Shah, M.D.)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 16, 2021
Docket83395
StatusPublished

This text of Narach, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Shah, M.D.) (Narach, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Shah, M.D.)) 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
Narach, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Shah, M.D.), (Neb. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TIENCHAI NARACH, M.D., No. 83395 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT SEP 1 b 2021 JUDGE, Respondents, and MARY ANN LYONS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN LYONS; WENDY CASH, INDIVIDUALLY; DHAVAL SHAH, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY; CLINTON ANDERSON, PAC; CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALISTS (ITANI) PC, A NEVADA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION; MILAN PATEL, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY; AND SUNRISE MOUNTAINVIEW HOSPITAL, INC., A NEVADA DOMESTIC CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a professional negligence matter. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 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

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

tO) I94M 4W . .Tora 1-Z61O tì 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 extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we do not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying a motion to dismiss a complaint, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule applies here. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 283. (1997). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Hardesty

Ae4C4,...0 , J. Sr.J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Collinson, Daehnke, Inlow & Greco McBride Hall Claggett & Sykes Law Firm Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 » 19-DA

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

Related

Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court of State of Nevada
950 P.2d 280 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1997)
Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court
818 P.2d 849 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Narach, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Shah, M.D.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/narach-md-vs-dist-ct-shah-md-nev-2021.