Opinion
83590
04-29-2022
FELICE J. FIORE; AND SPEEDVEGAS, LLC, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ESTATE OF GIL BEN-KELY BY ANTONELLA BEN-KELY, THE DULY APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE AND AS THE WIDOW AND HEIR OF DECEDENT GIL BEN-KELY; SHON BEN-KELY, SON AND HEIR OF DECEDENT GIL BEN-KELY; NATHALIE BEN-KELY-SCOTT, DAUGHTER AND HEIR OF THE DECEDENT GIL BEN-KELY; GWENDOLYN WARD, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CRAIG SHERWOOD, DECEASED; GWENDOLYN WARD, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF CRAIG SHERWOOD, DECEASED; AND GWENDOLYN SHERWOOD, AS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF ZANE SHERWOOD, SURVIVING MINOR CHILD OF CRAIG SHERWOOD, DECEASED, Real Parties in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court's denial of petitioners' motion for summary judgment in a tort action. Having considered petitioners' argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted as to petitioners' request for mandamus relief. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (stating that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief and recognizing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted, unless the district court is obligated to dismiss or summarily adjudicate the action or an important issue of law requires clarification); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-45, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (observing that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying motions to dismiss or for summary judgment); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d. 849, 851 (1991) (observing that issuance of the writ is subject to this court's discretion).
Petitioners do not address the general rule that the court will not entertain writ petitions challenging district court orders denying summary judgment, and we conclude that the petition presents no reason to deviate from it. See ANSE, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 862, 867, 192 P.3d 738, 742 (2008) (declining to consider such petitions "unless summary judgment is clearly required by a statute or rule, or an important issue of law requires clarification"). Insofar as petitioners seek a writ of prohibition, they provide no cogent argument regarding that relief, and we need not consider it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, we
We deny petitioners' request for a stay as moot. The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
PARRAGUIRRE, J., CADISH, J., GIBBONS, SR. J.
HON. NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE