Opheikens Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gardner)

Nevada Supreme Court

Opheikens Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gardner)

DecidedAugust 23, 2019

Docket79426

StatusPublished

This text of Opheikens Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gardner) (Opheikens Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gardner)) 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

Opheikens Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gardner), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ORLUFF OPHEIKENS; SLADE No. 79426 OPHEIKENS; CHET OPHEIKENS; AND TOM WELCH, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and PETER GARDNER; CHRISTIAN GARDNER, ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD LG.; HENDERSON WATER PARK, LLC,, D/B/A COWABUNGA BAY WATER PARK: SHANE HUISIt SCOTT :HUISH; CRAIG HUISH; WILLIAM PATRICK RAY, JR.; AND R&O - CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original, emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a tort action. In particular, petitioning LLC managers challenge the district court's decision to allow the tort claims against them to proceed despite this court's decision in Gardner v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 133 Nev. 730, 405 P.3d 651 (2017), recognizing (in this case) that LLC managers cannot be held liable on third-party tort claims based solely on their status as managers, and despite NRS 78.138s 2017 and 2019 amendments.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA lg. 3r3r-S> (0) 1947A 400 Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. As a general rule, we will not exercise our discretion to consider writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary judgment. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280 281 (1997). Although we have "allowed a very few exceptione to that rule, id. at 1344- 45, 950 P.2d at 281, we are not convinced that any of them warrant our consideration of this petition, particularly as trial is scheduled to begin in October and the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment such that petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief, NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Therefore, we ORDER the petition DENIED. -

1st , J. Hardesty

Al4G4..0

Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski Godfrey Johnson Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP/Las Vegas Campbell & Williams Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP Stephenson & Dickinson Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

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

ORLUFF OPHEIKENS; SLADE No. 79426 OPHEIKENS; CHET OPHEIKENS; AND TOM WELCH, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and PETER GARDNER; CHRISTIAN GARDNER, ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD LG.; HENDERSON WATER PARK, LLC,, D/B/A COWABUNGA BAY WATER PARK: SHANE HUISIt SCOTT :HUISH; CRAIG HUISH; WILLIAM PATRICK RAY, JR.; AND R&O - CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original, emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying summary judgment in a tort action. In particular, petitioning LLC managers challenge the district court's decision to allow the tort claims against them to proceed despite this court's decision in Gardner v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 133 Nev. 730, 405 P.3d 651 (2017), recognizing (in this case) that LLC managers cannot be held liable on third-party tort claims based solely on their status as managers, and despite NRS 78.138s 2017 and 2019 amendments.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA lg. 3r3r-S> (0) 1947A 400 Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. As a general rule, we will not exercise our discretion to consider writ petitions that challenge district court orders denying summary judgment. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280 281 (1997). Although we have "allowed a very few exceptione to that rule, id. at 1344- 45, 950 P.2d at 281, we are not convinced that any of them warrant our consideration of this petition, particularly as trial is scheduled to begin in October and the issues presented can be raised on appeal from a final judgment such that petitioners have a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief, NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 225, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Therefore, we ORDER the petition DENIED. -

1st , J. Hardesty

Al4G4..0

Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski Godfrey Johnson Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP/Las Vegas Campbell & Williams Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP Stephenson & Dickinson Rogers, Mastrangelo, Carvalho & Mitchell, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Opheikens Vs. Dist. Ct. (Gardner), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opheikens-vs-dist-ct-gardner-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack