Rosiak Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rosiak)

Nevada Supreme Court

Rosiak Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rosiak)

DecidedJune 30, 2021

Docket83116

StatusPublished

This text of Rosiak Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rosiak) (Rosiak Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rosiak)) 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

Rosiak Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rosiak), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MARGARITA E. ROSIAK, No. 83116 Petitioner, VS.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUN 3J 2021 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIzAE r.THA.Rf::=',"•:404 MICHELE MERCER, DISTRICT su. •. CYrr JUDGE, SY DEPLITY CLERK Respondents, and RICHARD J. ROSIAK, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition seeks a writ compelling the district court to (1) add a revocable trust and trustees as indispensable parties; (2) issue an award of attorney fees, prior to trial, comparable to the fees paid by real party in interest to his counsel; and (3) continue the trial and reopen discovery so that trust assets may be properly traced. Petitioner also filed an emergency motion seeking to stay proceedings in the district court. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter and, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330; 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); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

“.» 1947A olg*, 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Cadish fir4 , J.

Herndon

cc: Hon. Michele Mercer, District Judge, Family Court Division The Grace Law Firm Willick Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

1In light of our decision, we deny petitioner's emergency motion for stay of the district court proceedings. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

( t) 1947A 2

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

MARGARITA E. ROSIAK, No. 83116 Petitioner, VS.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUN 3J 2021 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIzAE r.THA.Rf::=',"•:404 MICHELE MERCER, DISTRICT su. •. CYrr JUDGE, SY DEPLITY CLERK Respondents, and RICHARD J. ROSIAK, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition seeks a writ compelling the district court to (1) add a revocable trust and trustees as indispensable parties; (2) issue an award of attorney fees, prior to trial, comparable to the fees paid by real party in interest to his counsel; and (3) continue the trial and reopen discovery so that trust assets may be properly traced. Petitioner also filed an emergency motion seeking to stay proceedings in the district court. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter and, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330; 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); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

“.» 1947A olg*, 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Cadish fir4 , J.

Herndon

cc: Hon. Michele Mercer, District Judge, Family Court Division The Grace Law Firm Willick Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

1In light of our decision, we deny petitioner's emergency motion for stay of the district court proceedings. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

( t) 1947A 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rosiak Vs. Dist. Ct. (Rosiak), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosiak-vs-dist-ct-rosiak-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack