Opinion
No. 69933
04-15-2016
ECHO FOX, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND NARRAMORE DOBBINS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MARK R. DENTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and IOTA VIOLET, LLC, AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; IOTA ROYAL, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND FIVE SPRINGS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges district court orders granting motions to enlarge the time in which to serve process and denying a motion to dismiss for failure to timely serve process.
Having considered petitioners' arguments, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Because Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 116 Nev. 507, 516, 998 P.2d 1190, 1195-96 (2000), recognizes that a balanced and multifaceted analysis is appropriate in determining whether to dismiss a complaint under NRCP 4(i), and some of the factors set forth in Scrimer support the district court's decision to grant an enlargement of time, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; Scrimer, 116 Nev. at 513, 998 P.2d at 1193-94 (explaining that the good-cause determinations under NRCP 4(i) are within the district court's discretion). We therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Mark R. Denton, District Judge
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP/Las Vegas
Ballard Spahr, LLP
Schwartz Flansburg PLLC
Eighth District Court Clerk