Teachers Health Trust Vs. Dist. Ct. (Goodsell)

Nevada Supreme Court

Teachers Health Trust Vs. Dist. Ct. (Goodsell)

DecidedJuly 22, 2019

Docket78827

StatusPublished

This text of Teachers Health Trust Vs. Dist. Ct. (Goodsell) (Teachers Health Trust Vs. Dist. Ct. (Goodsell)) 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

Teachers Health Trust Vs. Dist. Ct. (Goodsell), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST, No. 78827 MEDSOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC D/B/A WELLHEALTH QUALITY CARE; AND CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, FILED vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUL 2 2 2019 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE STEFANY MILEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, DIANA GOODSELL; SHERI DEBARTOLO; MICHELLE REILLY; AND ANNETTIE ANAS, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order certifying a class in a breach of contract and tort action involving health insurance coverage and claims. Despite requesting a writ of prohibition, petitioners do not argue that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction. Cf. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 ("Prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain a district judge from exercising a judicial function without or in excess of its jurisdiction."). Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not 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

SUPREME COURT whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, we are not persuaded OF NevADA that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion in (0) 1947A /qt. 30 ft,P1 certifying real parties in interest as a class. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires . . . or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion."); Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837, 846, 124 P.3d 530, 537 (2005) (recognizing that the decision to certify a class is within the district court's discretion); 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). Further, the district court may reconsider its certification order once the case is further developed. NRCP 23(d)(1); see Shuette, 121 Nev. at 857-58, 124 P.3d at 544. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Ae4-4. A-42\ Hardesty 1 0 1 1/4. 4:414.6 Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Joseph G. Adams, Esq. Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Reno Shumway Van Pitegoff Law Office Callister & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT 'In light of this order, petitioners motion for a stay is denied as moot. OF NEVADA 2 (0) 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

TEACHERS HEALTH TRUST, No. 78827 MEDSOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC D/B/A WELLHEALTH QUALITY CARE; AND CLARK COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, FILED vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT JUL 2 2 2019 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE STEFANY MILEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, DIANA GOODSELL; SHERI DEBARTOLO; MICHELLE REILLY; AND ANNETTIE ANAS, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order certifying a class in a breach of contract and tort action involving health insurance coverage and claims. Despite requesting a writ of prohibition, petitioners do not argue that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction. Cf. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851 ("Prohibition is a proper remedy to restrain a district judge from exercising a judicial function without or in excess of its jurisdiction."). Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not 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

SUPREME COURT whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, we are not persuaded OF NevADA that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion in (0) 1947A /qt. 30 ft,P1 certifying real parties in interest as a class. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires . . . or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion."); Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 121 Nev. 837, 846, 124 P.3d 530, 537 (2005) (recognizing that the decision to certify a class is within the district court's discretion); 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). Further, the district court may reconsider its certification order once the case is further developed. NRCP 23(d)(1); see Shuette, 121 Nev. at 857-58, 124 P.3d at 544. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Ae4-4. A-42\ Hardesty 1 0 1 1/4. 4:414.6 Stiglich Silver

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Las Vegas Joseph G. Adams, Esq. Snell & Wilmer, LLP/Reno Shumway Van Pitegoff Law Office Callister & Associates Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT 'In light of this order, petitioners motion for a stay is denied as moot. OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Teachers Health Trust Vs. Dist. Ct. (Goodsell), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teachers-health-trust-vs-dist-ct-goodsell-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack