Opinion
No. 79959
02-25-2020
FORE STARS, LTD., a Nevada Limited Liability Company; 180 Land Co., LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; and Seventy Acres, LLC, a Nevada 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 Nancy L. Allf, District Judge, Respondents, and Jack B. Binion, an Individual; Duncan R. Lee and Irene Lee, Individuals and Trustees of the Lee Family Trust; Frank A. Schreck, an Individual; Turner Investments, Ltd., a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Roger P. Wagner and Carolyn G. Wagner, Individuals and Trustees of the Wagner Family Trust; Betty Englestad, as Trustee of the Betty Englestad Trust; Pyramid Lake Holdings, LLC; Jason Awad and Shereen Awad, as Trustees of the Awad Asset Protection Trust; Thomas Love, as Trustee of the Zena Trust ; Steve Thomas and Karen Thomas, as Trustees of the Steve and Karen Thomas Trust; Susan Sullivan, as Trustee of the Kenneth J. Sullivan Family Trust; Dr. Gregory Bigler; and Sally Bigler, Real Parties in Interest.
EHB Companies, LLC Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Las Vegas Pisanelli Bice, PLLC
EHB Companies, LLC
Hutchison & Steffen, LLC/Las Vegas
Pisanelli Bice, PLLC
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for summary judgment in a declaratory relief action.
Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). In particular, petitioners did not provide this court with a copy of a written order memorializing the challenged district court ruling, see Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that an oral ruling is ineffective for any purpose), and we are not otherwise persuaded that petitioners' arguments regarding the district court’s denial of their summary judgment motion warrants our extraordinary intervention. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist . Court , 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and that the right to appeal is an adequate legal remedy that may preclude writ relief); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (noting that this court generally will not consider writ petitions challenging orders denying summary judgment motions). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.