Swanson v. Dist. Ct. (Sonic Cavitation, Llc)

Nevada Supreme Court

Swanson v. Dist. Ct. (Sonic Cavitation, Llc)

DecidedAugust 25, 2022

Docket85205

StatusPublished

This text of Swanson v. Dist. Ct. (Sonic Cavitation, Llc) (Swanson v. Dist. Ct. (Sonic Cavitation, Llc)) 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

Swanson v. Dist. Ct. (Sonic Cavitation, Llc), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RONALD SWANSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 85205 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE SUSAN JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, AUG 2 5 2022 Respondents, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SU REME COURT and BY SONIC CAVITATION, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND GARY GEORGE, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting a motion to compel production of an affidavit relating to petitioner's consensual disbarment from the District of Columbia Bar. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 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); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 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). In particular, petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(01 Ig47A ,tgirgop discretion or lacked jurisdiction when granting the motion to compel. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Agwara v. State Bar of Nev., 133 Nev. 783, 785, 406 P.3d 488, 491 (2017); see D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 12(c) (permitting an attorney to consent to the disclosure of an affidavit required prior to disbarment by consent); Wardleigh v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 111 Nev. 345, 355-56, 891 P.2d 1180, 1186-87 (1995) (discussing at-issue implied waiver). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

J. Hardesty

A-ki5aug J. Stiglich

J. Herndon

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas Wolfe & Wyman LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

lln light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A

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

RONALD SWANSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 85205 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE SUSAN JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, AUG 2 5 2022 Respondents, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SU REME COURT and BY SONIC CAVITATION, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND GARY GEORGE, AN INDIVIDUAL, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order granting a motion to compel production of an affidavit relating to petitioner's consensual disbarment from the District of Columbia Bar. Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 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); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 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). In particular, petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(01 Ig47A ,tgirgop discretion or lacked jurisdiction when granting the motion to compel. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Agwara v. State Bar of Nev., 133 Nev. 783, 785, 406 P.3d 488, 491 (2017); see D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 12(c) (permitting an attorney to consent to the disclosure of an affidavit required prior to disbarment by consent); Wardleigh v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 111 Nev. 345, 355-56, 891 P.2d 1180, 1186-87 (1995) (discussing at-issue implied waiver). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

J. Hardesty

A-ki5aug J. Stiglich

J. Herndon

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas Wolfe & Wyman LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

lln light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (01 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Swanson v. Dist. Ct. (Sonic Cavitation, Llc), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swanson-v-dist-ct-sonic-cavitation-llc-nev-2022.

Opinion

J. Hardesty

J. Herndon

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack