S. Hills Medical Ctr., Llc v. Dist. Ct. Garcia

Nevada Supreme Court

S. Hills Medical Ctr., Llc v. Dist. Ct. Garcia

DecidedJune 24, 2022

Docket84636

StatusPublished

This text of S. Hills Medical Ctr., Llc v. Dist. Ct. Garcia (S. Hills Medical Ctr., Llc v. Dist. Ct. Garcia) 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

S. Hills Medical Ctr., Llc v. Dist. Ct. Garcia, (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SOUTHERN HILLS MEDICAL No. 84636 CENTER, LLC, D/B/A SOUTHERN HILLS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, vs. , FILE THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT , JUN 2 4 2022 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIKA D. BALLOU, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and EMMANUEL GARCIA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available); 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). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A allgbs. 2 z.-- 2 ooI o general rule applies here. Int? Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.'

, C.J. Parraguirre

Aact uy ,J Sr.J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas Burris & Thomas Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

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

SOUTHERN HILLS MEDICAL No. 84636 CENTER, LLC, D/B/A SOUTHERN HILLS HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Petitioner, vs. , FILE THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT , JUN 2 4 2022 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIKA D. BALLOU, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and EMMANUEL GARCIA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 683, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198 (2020) (declining to grant writ relief when a later appeal was available); 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). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A allgbs. 2 z.-- 2 ooI o general rule applies here. Int? Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of motions to dismiss). We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.'

, C.J. Parraguirre

Aact uy ,J Sr.J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Erika D. Ballou, District Judge Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas Burris & Thomas Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

S. Hills Medical Ctr., Llc v. Dist. Ct. Garcia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-hills-medical-ctr-llc-v-dist-ct-garcia-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack