Valley Health Sys., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Hinton)

Nevada Supreme Court

Valley Health Sys., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Hinton)

DecidedJuly 29, 2022

Docket84962

StatusPublished

This text of Valley Health Sys., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Hinton) (Valley Health Sys., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Hinton)) 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

Valley Health Sys., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Hinton), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, No. 84962 D/B/A SPRING VALLEY HOSPITAL, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE VERONICA BARISICH, DISTRICT JUL 29 2022 ELIZABETH A. BROWN JUDGE, CLERK4F ,UPREME COURT \ Respondents, BY DEPLITYRK and KURTISS HINTON; MICHAEL SCHNEIER, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL; AND MICHAEL SCHNEIER NEUROSURGICAL CONSULTING, P.C., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss and a motion for reconsideration in a professional negligence matter. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 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). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A alOn 3`t.S-3 precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal following a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Cf. Int'l Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (recognizing the court's general policy to "decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss" except in limited circumstances). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

/444, , J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Veronica Barisich, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Injury Lawyers of Nevada McBride Hall Eighth District Court Clerk

2 (0) I 947A

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

VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, No. 84962 D/B/A SPRING VALLEY HOSPITAL, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE VERONICA BARISICH, DISTRICT JUL 29 2022 ELIZABETH A. BROWN JUDGE, CLERK4F ,UPREME COURT \ Respondents, BY DEPLITYRK and KURTISS HINTON; MICHAEL SCHNEIER, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL; AND MICHAEL SCHNEIER NEUROSURGICAL CONSULTING, P.C., A NEVADA CORPORATION, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss and a motion for reconsideration in a professional negligence matter. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, 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). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A alOn 3`t.S-3 precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal following a final judgment would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Cf. Int'l Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008) (recognizing the court's general policy to "decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders denying motions to dismiss" except in limited circumstances). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

/444, , J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Veronica Barisich, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Injury Lawyers of Nevada McBride Hall Eighth District Court Clerk

2 (0) I 947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Valley Health Sys., Llc v. Dist. Ct. (Hinton), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valley-health-sys-llc-v-dist-ct-hinton-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack