Reynolds v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp.

Nevada Supreme Court

Reynolds v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp.

DecidedJuly 13, 2016

Docket70581

StatusUnpublished

This text of Reynolds v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp. (Reynolds v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp.) 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

Reynolds v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp., (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KATHRYN REYNOLDS; AND NORMAN No. 70581 GARAND, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA FILED CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO JUL 1 3 2016 BUSINESS IN NEVADA; GREGORY TRACE K. LINDEMAN WILDE, A NEVADA ATTORNEY; AND CLERK OF UPREME COURT

CINDY LEE STOCK, A NEVADA BY 6- DEPUTY CLER

ATTORNEY, Respondents.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks, among other things, an order directing the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to grant petitioners' motion to remand. Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our intervention is appropriate, as this court lacks the authority, to order the federal district court to take or refrain from taking the requested actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (2012); Laguna Viii. Inc. v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am., 672 P.2d 882, 885 (Cal. 1983) (recognizing that "the federal removal statute. . . expressly prohibit[s] any proceeding in state court after removal and prior to remand"); see also Mineral Cty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., 117 Nev. 235, 242-43, 20 P.3d 800, 805 (2001) (observing that a writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of an act by an "inferior" state tribunal, corporation, board, or person); Gojack v. Second Judicial Dist. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1 ,147A 1(0 Z1 151 - Court, 95 Nev. 443, 444, 596 P.2d 237, 238 (1979) (same with respect to a writ of prohibition); cf. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970) ("[W]e have had in this country two essentially separate legal systems. Each system proceeds independently from the other . . . . [T]his dual system could not function if state and federal courts were free to fight each other for control of a particular case."). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Gibbons

cc: Kathryn Reynolds Norman Garand Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.

'In light of our disposition of this writ petition, petitioners' July 1, 2016, motion is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e

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

KATHRYN REYNOLDS; AND NORMAN No. 70581 GARAND, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA FILED CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO JUL 1 3 2016 BUSINESS IN NEVADA; GREGORY TRACE K. LINDEMAN WILDE, A NEVADA ATTORNEY; AND CLERK OF UPREME COURT

CINDY LEE STOCK, A NEVADA BY 6- DEPUTY CLER

ATTORNEY, Respondents.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks, among other things, an order directing the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to grant petitioners' motion to remand. Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our intervention is appropriate, as this court lacks the authority, to order the federal district court to take or refrain from taking the requested actions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d) (2012); Laguna Viii. Inc. v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am., 672 P.2d 882, 885 (Cal. 1983) (recognizing that "the federal removal statute. . . expressly prohibit[s] any proceeding in state court after removal and prior to remand"); see also Mineral Cty. v. State, Dep't of Conservation & Nat. Res., 117 Nev. 235, 242-43, 20 P.3d 800, 805 (2001) (observing that a writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of an act by an "inferior" state tribunal, corporation, board, or person); Gojack v. Second Judicial Dist. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1 ,147A 1(0 Z1 151 - Court, 95 Nev. 443, 444, 596 P.2d 237, 238 (1979) (same with respect to a writ of prohibition); cf. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 286 (1970) ("[W]e have had in this country two essentially separate legal systems. Each system proceeds independently from the other . . . . [T]his dual system could not function if state and federal courts were free to fight each other for control of a particular case."). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Gibbons

cc: Kathryn Reynolds Norman Garand Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno Tiffany & Bosco, P.A.

'In light of our disposition of this writ petition, petitioners' July 1, 2016, motion is denied as moot.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Reynolds v. Nat'l Default Servicing Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-natl-default-servicing-corp-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack