Nguyen, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Adams)

Nevada Supreme Court

Nguyen, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Adams)

DecidedMarch 17, 2022

Docket83523

StatusPublished

This text of Nguyen, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Adams) (Nguyen, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Adams)) 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

Nguyen, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Adams), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MINH NGUYEN, M.D., No. 83523 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MONICA TRUJILLO, DISTRICT JUDGE, FILE Respondents, and PATRICIA ANN ADAMS, INDIVIDUALLY, IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEWART FAMILY TRUST, DATED JANUARY 31, 2007, IN HER CAPACITY AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CONNIE STEWART AND IN HER CAPACITY AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARY STEWART; GARY LINCK STEWART, JR., AN INDIVIDUAL; MARY KAY FALLON, AN INDIVIDUAL; ELIZABETH A. HODGE, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND EMIL MORNEAULT, RPH, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in part. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Di.st. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .210#12. 77-eysoi 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). Specifically, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to grant writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not convinced any of the exceptions apply in this case. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing the exceptions to the general rule). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Parraguirre

#41,6%Sbas.-P J. Sr.J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Monica Trujillo, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC/Las Vegas Hayes Wakayama Eighth District Court Clerk

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

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

MINH NGUYEN, M.D., No. 83523 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MONICA TRUJILLO, DISTRICT JUDGE, FILE Respondents, and PATRICIA ANN ADAMS, INDIVIDUALLY, IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE STEWART FAMILY TRUST, DATED JANUARY 31, 2007, IN HER CAPACITY AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CONNIE STEWART AND IN HER CAPACITY AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GARY STEWART; GARY LINCK STEWART, JR., AN INDIVIDUAL; MARY KAY FALLON, AN INDIVIDUAL; ELIZABETH A. HODGE, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND EMIL MORNEAULT, RPH, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in part. Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Di.st. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .210#12. 77-eysoi 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). Specifically, we generally decline to exercise our discretion to grant writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not convinced any of the exceptions apply in this case. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing the exceptions to the general rule). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Parraguirre

#41,6%Sbas.-P J. Sr.J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Monica Trujillo, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC/Las Vegas Hayes Wakayama Eighth District Court Clerk

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nguyen, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Adams), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nguyen-md-v-dist-ct-adams-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack