Panjwani v. Dist. Ct. (Maxwell)

Nevada Supreme Court

Panjwani v. Dist. Ct. (Maxwell)

DecidedApril 15, 2016

Docket69986

StatusUnpublished

This text of Panjwani v. Dist. Ct. (Maxwell) (Panjwani v. Dist. Ct. (Maxwell)) 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

Panjwani v. Dist. Ct. (Maxwell), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

NEVEED PANJWANI, No. 69986 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC APR 1 5 2016 JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, TRACE K. LINDEMAN Respondents, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT gy . and DEPUTY CLERK

ASHLEY MAXWELL, Real Party 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 a complaint for failure to timely serve process. Having considered petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Because Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000), recognizes that a balanced and multifaceted analysis is appropriate in determining whether to dismiss a complaint under NRCP 4(i), and because some of the factors set forth in Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 596, 245 P.3d 1198, 1201 (2010), and Scrimer support the district court's decision to grant the untimely motion to enlarge the time for service and to deny petitioner's motion to dismiss, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) (947R 0 1So- 1..!8‘g P.3d at 558; see Saavedra-Sandoval, 126 Nev. at 596, 245 P.3d at 1201 (providing that upon a showing of good cause, the district court may enlarge the time for service of process); Scrimer, 116 Nev. at 513, 998 P.2d at 1193-94 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge Hawkins Melendrez, P.C. Golightly & Vannah, PLLC/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10) 15)41A

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

NEVEED PANJWANI, No. 69986 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC APR 1 5 2016 JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, TRACE K. LINDEMAN Respondents, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT gy . and DEPUTY CLERK

ASHLEY MAXWELL, Real Party 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 a complaint for failure to timely serve process. Having considered petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Because Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000), recognizes that a balanced and multifaceted analysis is appropriate in determining whether to dismiss a complaint under NRCP 4(i), and because some of the factors set forth in Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 596, 245 P.3d 1198, 1201 (2010), and Scrimer support the district court's decision to grant the untimely motion to enlarge the time for service and to deny petitioner's motion to dismiss, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) (947R 0 1So- 1..!8‘g P.3d at 558; see Saavedra-Sandoval, 126 Nev. at 596, 245 P.3d at 1201 (providing that upon a showing of good cause, the district court may enlarge the time for service of process); Scrimer, 116 Nev. at 513, 998 P.2d at 1193-94 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge Hawkins Melendrez, P.C. Golightly & Vannah, PLLC/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10) 15)41A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Panjwani v. Dist. Ct. (Maxwell), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panjwani-v-dist-ct-maxwell-nev-2016.

Opinion

J. Douglas

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack