Opinion
No. 66617
02-04-2015
JEAN FENOLIO, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JOANNA KISHNER, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JUDY MARSHALL; AND RANDY MARSHALL, Real Parties 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 prohibition challenges a district court partial summary judgment order entered in a personal injury action.
Mandamus and prohibition are typically not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004).
In this case, if petitioner is aggrieved by the final judgment entered below, she may appeal that determination and challenge the partial summary judgment ruling at issue here in the context of that appeal. Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998) (recognizing that interlocutory orders entered before final judgment can be reviewed in an appeal from the final judgment). Thus, we conclude that petitioner has a speedy and adequate legal remedy available, and we therefore deny the petition. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P. 3d at 841.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. Joanna Kishner, District Judge
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Glen Lerner Injury Attorneys
Eighth District Court Clerk