Shac, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Shepard)
This text of Shac, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Shepard) (Shac, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Shepard)) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
SHAC, LLC, No. 75888 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED LINDA MARIE BELL, DISTRICT FEB 2 8 2019 JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK F SUPREME COURT Respondents, BY •- and DEPUTY CLERK
LILY SHEPARD; JANE DOE DANCER I; JANE DOE DANCER IV; AND JANE DOE DANCER V, INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF SIMILARLY SITUATED, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This matter comes before the court on an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus arising out of a class-action complaint asserting constitutional and other minimum-wage-based claims. Having reviewed the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is appropriate. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; see MDC Rests., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev., Adv. Op. 41, 419 P.3d 148, 151 (2018). To discuss aggregation without considering the 2019 amendments to NRCP 23—which the district court did not consider and the parties do not discuss—seems more likely to complicate than clarify the law. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev., Adv. Op. 101, 407 P.3d 702, 708 (2017) (holding that
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
le (0) 1947A 0-0M37 advisory mandamus should only issue to address "the rare question" that is fully developed and likely to recur without interlocutory review). At the same time, the status of Jane Doe Dancer I and the components of her and the other class representatives' claims are unclear. See Buckwalter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 126 Nev. 200, 201, 234 P.3d 920, 921 (2010) (noting this court does not entertain writ petitions challenging denial of motions to dismiss that are fact-bound). Accordingly, and without opining on the merits of the arguments presented, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
C.J. Gibbon'.
Adeuu,y ' Pickering J 11..,frewt, , J. Hardesty
-cisar Parraguirre
J. "aLtbC"-g Stiglich
, J. Cadish
SUPREME COURT J. OF Silver NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A eya cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge Greenberg Traurig, LLP/Las Vegas Bighorn Law Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ea,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Shac, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Shepard), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shac-llc-v-dist-ct-shepard-nev-2019.