Quiroz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sixt Rent A Car)

Nevada Supreme Court

Quiroz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sixt Rent A Car)

DecidedDecember 16, 2020

Docket81992

StatusPublished

This text of Quiroz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sixt Rent A Car) (Quiroz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sixt Rent A Car)) 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

Quiroz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sixt Rent A Car), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LILIA QUIROZ, No. 81992 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JAMES DEC 1 6 2020 CROCKETT, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and SIXT RENT A CAR; CHAD ROBERTS; WILLIAM SWEIS; DONALD VOIGT; CLARK COUNTY; AND CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandanius challenges district court orders denying motions for partial summary judgment and for sanctions. 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 Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the 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). In particular, we generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment or orders regarding discovery issues and we are not convinced that any exceptions to those general rules apply here. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (addressing denials of summary judgment motions); see also Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 679 (2011) (addressing discovery orders); Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 578, 582, 331 P.3d 876, 878 (2014) (applying the rule from Valley Health Systems to an order imposing sanctions for a discovery issue). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J. Stiglich

, J.

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Cottle Law Firm Christopher M. Young, PC Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP William Sweis 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

LILIA QUIROZ, No. 81992 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JAMES DEC 1 6 2020 CROCKETT, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and SIXT RENT A CAR; CHAD ROBERTS; WILLIAM SWEIS; DONALD VOIGT; CLARK COUNTY; AND CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandanius challenges district court orders denying motions for partial summary judgment and for sanctions. 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 Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the 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). In particular, we generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment or orders regarding discovery issues and we are not convinced that any exceptions to those general rules apply here. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (addressing denials of summary judgment motions); see also Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 679 (2011) (addressing discovery orders); Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 578, 582, 331 P.3d 876, 878 (2014) (applying the rule from Valley Health Systems to an order imposing sanctions for a discovery issue). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J. Stiglich

, J.

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge Cottle Law Firm Christopher M. Young, PC Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP William Sweis Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Quiroz Vs. Dist. Ct. (Sixt Rent A Car), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quiroz-vs-dist-ct-sixt-rent-a-car-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack