Opinion
No. 79791
03-18-2020
Peter MURPHY, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable David S. Gibson, Jr., District Judge, Respondents, and Alicia Murphy, Real Party in Interest.
Cramer Law Firm Pecos Law Group
Cramer Law Firm
Pecos Law Group
ORDER DISMISSING WRIT PETITION
Petitioner contends that, absent a remand under Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978), disapproved on other grounds by Foster v. Dingwall, 126 Nev. 49, 228 P.3d 453 (2010), the district court lacks jurisdiction to hold a calendar call and order discovery regarding real party in interest’s motion to relocate while petitioner’s appeal in Docket No. 78300 is pending. However, after petitioner filed this writ petition, this court ordered a Huneycutt remand. See Murphy v. Moore, Docket No. 78300 (Nov. 1, 2019, Order Granting Motion for Limited Remand and Suspending Briefing Schedule). Consequently, there is no longer any relief that this court can grant petitioner within the context of this writ petition, rendering the petition moot. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol , 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) ("This court’s duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment"). We therefore dismiss this writ petition.
It is so ORDERED.