From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 23, 2013
No. 64492 (Nev. Dec. 23, 2013)

Opinion

No. 64492

12-23-2013

D.R. HORTON, INC., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE SUSAN JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and DORRELL SQUARE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A DOMESTIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, Real Party in Interest.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 original petition for a writ of mandamus, or alternatively, prohibition, challenges a district court order determining that real party in interest homeowners' association can litigate, on behalf of its members, certain claims for construction defects.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition may be warranted when the district court exceeds its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. Whether a petition for mandamus or prohibition relief will be considered is purely discretionary with this court. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is generally available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Moreover, this court has held that the right to appeal is typically an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; NRAP 21(b)(1). Specifically, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from a final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P. 3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

_________________, C.J.

Pickering
_________________, J.
Hardesty
_________________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge

Wolfenzon Rolle/Las Vegas

James R. Christensen

Maddox, Isaacson & Cisneros, LLP

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 23, 2013
No. 64492 (Nev. Dec. 23, 2013)
Case details for

D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

Case Details

Full title:D.R. HORTON, INC., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Dec 23, 2013

Citations

No. 64492 (Nev. Dec. 23, 2013)