Tesema v. Dist. Ct. (Lucky Cab Co.)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: February 21, 2017
• Docket: 70763
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MELAKU TESEMA; MINALE M. No. 70763 ABEBE; METASEBIA MILLION; AND ACMETHAY GEBERSECASA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FEB 2 1 2017 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK F eUPREME COURT CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BY DEPUTY CLERK KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and LUCKY CAB CO.; AND LUCKY TRANSPORTATION, INC., Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a declaration that the underlying matter has been stayed for purposes of NRCP 41(e). Having considered the parties' arguments and the record, we are persuaded that our intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). In particular, the district court's delay in resolving petitioners' motion for class certification appears to be preventing petitioners from attempting to bring their action to trial within NRCP 41(e)'s five-year time frame. Moreover, the district court's failure to answer this court's September 29, 2016, order renders meaningful consideration of this petition impracticable. SUPREME COURT Accordingly, we partially grant petitioners' request for writ OF NEVADA relief, insofar as we direct the district court to enter an order deciding (0) 1947A 4iC§r4(4,4 atassig/ petitioners' motion for class certification within 15 days from the date of this order. Petitioners shall notify this court if the district court fails to do so within the allotted time frame. We decline to consider within the confines of this writ petition whether to adopt a rule consistent with out- of-state law that would allow for tolling of NRCP 41(e)'s five-year time frame during the period in which a district court's inaction has prevented a party from bringing an action to trial 1 In that respect, petitioners' request for writ relief is denied. Consistent with the foregoing, we ORDER the petition PARTIALLY GRANTED and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the district court to decide petitioners' motion for class certification within 15 days from the date of this order. 2

veywin , J. Hardesty

"eke-C 'J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation Lovato Law Firm, P.C. Eighth District Court Clerk

'In this regard, we note petitioners' reliance on Moran v. Superior Court, 673 P.2d 216 (Cal. 1983), City of Pasadena v. City of Alhambra, 207 P.2d 17 (Cal. 1949), and Pacific Greyhound Lines v. Superior Court, 168 P.2d 665 (Cal. 1946).

2 Petitioners' motion for a stay is denied.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A