Opinion
No. 68593
09-11-2015
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
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 order granting leave to amend or substitute petitioner as a defendant in a tort action. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that petitioner met her burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary discretionary intervention is warranted as petitioner has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in granting Alona Harber and Robert Harber's motion to amend their complaint. Burnett v. C.B.A. Sec. Serv., Inc., 107 Nev. 787, 789, 820 P.2d 750, 752 (1991) (reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion); Costello v. Casler, 127 Nev. 436, 440-41, 254 P.3d 631, 634 (2011) (identifying three factors that a plaintiff must satisfy in order to add a new defendant after the statute of limitations has run); see NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, J.
Parraguirre
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge
Upson Smith/Reno
Curriden, Arneson and Anderton
Van Walraven & Harris, Chtd.
Ranalli & Zaniel, LLC/Reno
Erickson Thorpe & Swainston, Ltd.
Whitehead & Whitehead
Law Offices of Kenneth E. Lyon, III
M. Jerome Wright
Law Offices of Melissa P. Harris
Glogovac & Pintar
Paul Kapitz
Emerson & Manke, LLP
Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
Washoe District Court Clerk