Rodriguez Vs. Dist. Ct. (Premier Homes Constr., Inc.)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 30, 2021
• Docket: 82939
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 82939 BARBARA RODRIGUEZ; AND KATHLEEN VIRGINIA JONES, IN HER CAPACITY AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ERNEST RODRIGUEZ, FILED Petitioners, vs. SEP 3 0 2021 THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT EUZAB A. BROWN COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, CLE OF PREFAE COURT BY IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DE CLERK

WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN M. DRAKULICH, Vaccef ect per 11/ RI ai DISTRICT JUDGE, orcier Respondents, and PREMIER HOME CONSTRUCTION, INC., Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

ly, This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or alternative ary judgment prohibition, challenges a district court order granting summ s property was a on the issue of whether the work performed on appellant' "qualified service" for the purposes of NRS 624.622(4)(a). , This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus court's sole and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this v. Eighth Judicial discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. 7 (2007). Petitioners Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-3 anted, and such bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warr adequate remedy relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and 222, 224, 228, 88 at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial .Dist. Court, 120 Nev.

7,11 y P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remed l is precluding writ relief. Icl. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appea in not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from at 841. a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d Further, "[t] his court has held that the decision to admit or exclude expert on opinion testimony is discretionary and is not typically subject to review a petition for a writ of mandamus." Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, n, 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011). Having considered the petitio n, real party in interest's answer, and petitioner's reply in support of petitio we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioners have not demonstrated that an appeal from a final y. judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remed Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. Kathleen M. Drakulich, District Judge Law Office of James Shields Beasley • Castronova Law Offices, P.C. Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 Oi I947A cajDo