Vickie'S Diner, Inc. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Arcila)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 11, 2021
• Docket: 82785
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VICKIE'S DINER, INC., No. 82785 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE F1L D CRYSTAL ELLER, DISTRICT JUDGE, JUN 1 2021 Respondents, A. BROWN PREME COURT and BY VALENTIN ARCILA; NEVADA POWER UriCLERK COMPANY, A NEVADA CORPORATION; 1700 VEGAS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND BRYANT ZHU, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders denying a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, and denying in part a motion for reconsideration. Having considered the petition and its documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 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); Srnith 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 deterniining whether to entertain a writ petition). Generally, we will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment, and we are not persuaded that any exception to the general rule

1—i6c12_0 applies here. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344- 45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (discussing writ petitions challenging denials of summary judgment); see also Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1198-99 (2020) (declining to provide advisory mandamus relief when the underlying issue involved factual disputes). Moreover, petitioner failed to provide all of the briefing pertaining to the challenged orders, further warranting denial of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing a petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Cadish

, J. Pickering

Herndon

cc: Hon. Crystal Eller, District Judge Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Las Vegas Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, LLC Cottle Law Firm Gonzalez & Flores Law Firm Harper Selim Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner bases its challenge to the order denying reconsideration on the district court's denial of summary judgment therein. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 1947A 41421,1.