Sullivan Vs. Dist. Ct. (Janone, Inc.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Sullivan Vs. Dist. Ct. (Janone, Inc.)

DecidedJune 24, 2020

Docket80964

StatusPublished

This text of Sullivan Vs. Dist. Ct. (Janone, Inc.) (Sullivan Vs. Dist. Ct. (Janone, Inc.)) 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

Sullivan Vs. Dist. Ct. (Janone, Inc.), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GREGG SULLIVAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 80964 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, JUN 2 4 2020 ELIZABETH A. BROWN DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Respondents, BY DEPUTY CLERK and JANONE, INC., F/K/A APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; GEOTRAQ, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; JOHN (JON") ISAAC, AN INDIVIDUAL; ANTONIOS (TONY") ISAAC, AN INDIVIDUAL; JUAN YUNIS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ISAAC CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenges a district court order excluding evidence in a tort and breach of contract action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pcm v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the lattrden 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

gO -.R34(42- that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Specifically, whether the petition challenges an order excluding evidence or an order imposing discovery sanctions, petitioner fails to demonstrate that any exceptions to the general rules against considering petitions raising such challenges apply here. See Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 578, 581-82, 331 P.3d 876, 878 (2014) (applying the rules for reviewing discovery orders to a writ petition challenging discovery sanctions); Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 678-79 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining writ petitions challenging discovery orders); Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524-25, 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining admissibility-related writ petitions). We therefore ORDER the petitioner DENIED.

Parraguirre

Aci_A , J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Cosgrove Law Group, LLC Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd. Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas James Clifford Sabalos Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 4461A04(

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

GREGG SULLIVAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 80964 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH GOFF GONZALEZ, JUN 2 4 2020 ELIZABETH A. BROWN DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Respondents, BY DEPUTY CLERK and JANONE, INC., F/K/A APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; GEOTRAQ, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION; JOHN (JON") ISAAC, AN INDIVIDUAL; ANTONIOS (TONY") ISAAC, AN INDIVIDUAL; JUAN YUNIS, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND ISAAC CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenges a district court order excluding evidence in a tort and breach of contract action. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pcm v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the lattrden 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

gO -.R34(42- that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Specifically, whether the petition challenges an order excluding evidence or an order imposing discovery sanctions, petitioner fails to demonstrate that any exceptions to the general rules against considering petitions raising such challenges apply here. See Las Vegas Sands v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 578, 581-82, 331 P.3d 876, 878 (2014) (applying the rules for reviewing discovery orders to a writ petition challenging discovery sanctions); Valley Health Sys., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 167, 171, 252 P.3d 676, 678-79 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining writ petitions challenging discovery orders); Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524-25, 262 P.3d 360, 364-65 (2011) (outlining exceptions to the general rule against entertaining admissibility-related writ petitions). We therefore ORDER the petitioner DENIED.

Parraguirre

Aci_A , J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Cosgrove Law Group, LLC Sylvester & Polednak, Ltd. Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas James Clifford Sabalos Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 4461A04(

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sullivan Vs. Dist. Ct. (Janone, Inc.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-vs-dist-ct-janone-inc-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack