State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Bird)

Nevada Supreme Court

State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Bird)

DecidedMay 5, 2020

Docket81033

StatusPublished

This text of State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Bird) (State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Bird)) 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

State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Bird), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE No. 81033 INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, F I L krt., D IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE MAY O 5 2020 ELLIOTT A. SATTLER, DISTRICT LI"L CLERK OF v./kw-1-H JUDGE, EY 5,y. Respondents, •

and DELORIS BIRD, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or writ of prohibition, seeks a writ directing the district court to vacate its January 15, 2020, order confirming the Discovery Commissioner's recommendations and to enter an order granting petitioner's motion to strike and request for a protective order. A writ of mandamus "is available to compel performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an 'office, trust or station' or to control a manifest abuse of, or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of, discretion." See Cheung v. Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 868-69, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005) quoting NRS 34.160. The counterpart to a writ of mandate, a writ of prohibition, is available when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See State of Nev. v. Dist. Court (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). This court has original SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .40. jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Here, petitioner has not met that burden. We therefore conclude that interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

A.14y , C.J. Pickering

A4.A. J. J Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge Messner Reeves LLP Galloway & Jensen Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I447A 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

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE No. 81033 INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, F I L krt., D IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE MAY O 5 2020 ELLIOTT A. SATTLER, DISTRICT LI"L CLERK OF v./kw-1-H JUDGE, EY 5,y. Respondents, •

and DELORIS BIRD, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or writ of prohibition, seeks a writ directing the district court to vacate its January 15, 2020, order confirming the Discovery Commissioner's recommendations and to enter an order granting petitioner's motion to strike and request for a protective order. A writ of mandamus "is available to compel performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an 'office, trust or station' or to control a manifest abuse of, or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of, discretion." See Cheung v. Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 868-69, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005) quoting NRS 34.160. The counterpart to a writ of mandate, a writ of prohibition, is available when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See State of Nev. v. Dist. Court (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). This court has original SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A .40. jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Here, petitioner has not met that burden. We therefore conclude that interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

A.14y , C.J. Pickering

A4.A. J. J Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge Messner Reeves LLP Galloway & Jensen Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I447A 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Bird), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-auto-ins-co-vs-dist-ct-bird-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack