Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Claim Jumper Acquisition Co., LLC)

Nevada Supreme Court

Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Claim Jumper Acquisition Co., LLC)

DecidedOctober 27, 2016

Docket66629

StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Claim Jumper Acquisition Co., LLC) (Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Claim Jumper Acquisition Co., 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

Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Claim Jumper Acquisition Co., LLC), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LISA WILLIAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 66629 AMBER KLINE, AN INDIVIDUAL; LAWRENCE PARSONS, AN INDIVIDUAL; HANNAH SAFFORD, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DYLAN LEACH, FILED AN INDIVIDUAL, ALL ON BEHALF OF OCT 2 7 2016 THEMSELVES AND ALL SIMILARLY- SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JEROME T. TAO, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CLAIM JUMPER ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION'

This case comes before the court on an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition directing the district court to reverse its order granting partial summary judgment for the employer in a class

'The Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, Justice, having retired, this matter was decided by a six-justice court.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A citarc. lcp-33u91 action alleging violation of the Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) to the Nevada Constitution. See Nev. Const. art. 15, § 16. Normally, this court will not entertain writ petitions seeking to interdict interlocutory district court orders granting or denying partial summary judgment. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). While this court has, on occasion, departed from this rule, the broad legal question petitioners present to justify extraordinary writ relief—whether the two-year statute of limitations in NRS 608.260 applies to MWA claims—has been addressed by this court in Perry v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 132 Nev., Adv. Op. , P.3d (2016), filed concurrently. There thus does not appear a basis for us to intercede by extraordinary writ. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 146, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002) (a writ of prohibition or mandamus represents "an extraordinary remedy that will only issue at the discretion of this court"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

P O-Ote1/4.-ntsmes..-4.J. Parraguirre / Hardesty

J. Gibbons

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194M e cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas Jackson Lewis P.C. Littler Mendelson/Las Vegas Hejmanowski & McCrea LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0)1947A e

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

LISA WILLIAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 66629 AMBER KLINE, AN INDIVIDUAL; LAWRENCE PARSONS, AN INDIVIDUAL; HANNAH SAFFORD, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DYLAN LEACH, FILED AN INDIVIDUAL, ALL ON BEHALF OF OCT 2 7 2016 THEMSELVES AND ALL SIMILARLY- SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JEROME T. TAO, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CLAIM JUMPER ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION'

This case comes before the court on an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition directing the district court to reverse its order granting partial summary judgment for the employer in a class

'The Honorable Nancy M. Saitta, Justice, having retired, this matter was decided by a six-justice court.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A citarc. lcp-33u91 action alleging violation of the Minimum Wage Amendment (MWA) to the Nevada Constitution. See Nev. Const. art. 15, § 16. Normally, this court will not entertain writ petitions seeking to interdict interlocutory district court orders granting or denying partial summary judgment. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). While this court has, on occasion, departed from this rule, the broad legal question petitioners present to justify extraordinary writ relief—whether the two-year statute of limitations in NRS 608.260 applies to MWA claims—has been addressed by this court in Perry v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 132 Nev., Adv. Op. , P.3d (2016), filed concurrently. There thus does not appear a basis for us to intercede by extraordinary writ. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 146, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002) (a writ of prohibition or mandamus represents "an extraordinary remedy that will only issue at the discretion of this court"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

P O-Ote1/4.-ntsmes..-4.J. Parraguirre / Hardesty

J. Gibbons

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194M e cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, LLP/Las Vegas Jackson Lewis P.C. Littler Mendelson/Las Vegas Hejmanowski & McCrea LLC Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0)1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Dist. Ct. (Claim Jumper Acquisition Co., LLC), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-dist-ct-claim-jumper-acquisition-co-llc-nev-2016.

Opinion

J. Gibbons

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack