Opinion
No. 65061 No. 66632
02-17-2015
KIMBERLY JONES, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE GAYLE NATHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and FLETCHER JONES, JR., Real Party in Interest. KIMBERLY JONES, Appellant, v. FLETCHER JONES, JR., Respondent.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER
Docket No. 65061 is a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeking to vacate a district court order compelling disclosure of allegedly privileged documents. Docket No. 66632 is an appeal from the final district court judgment in the same underlying case. Real party in interest/respondent Fletcher Jones (Fletcher) has moved to dismiss the writ proceeding because petitioner/appellant Kimberly Jones (Kimberly) now has an adequate remedy at law in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. Kimberly opposed the motion and Fletcher replied.
Writ relief is available where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and the right to 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). A final judgment has been entered in the district court case underlying these matters, and Kimberly has exercised her right to appeal that final judgment. Kimberly therefore has an adequate remedy at law in the form of that appeal, in which the issues raised in the petition can be addressed. Accordingly, we grant Fletcher's motion and dismiss the petition in Docket No. 65061.
Indeed, in her opposition to the motion to dismiss, Kimberly states that the subject of the writ petition "will be one subject of Kimberly's pending appeal."
As the writ proceeding is dismissed, we deny Kimberly's motion to consolidate it with the appeal. Further, because the need for a stay of disclosure of the allegedly privileged documents appears to have abated in light of the underlying trial having concluded without their disclosure, we dissolve the stay entered in this court's July 25, 2014, order in Docket No. 65061. Finally, we grant Kimberly's request to defer oral argument to the extent that we vacate our January 28, 2015, order in Docket No. 65061 regarding the scheduling of oral argument.
--------
In Docket No. 66632, Kimberly has also filed a motion to file a motion for stay that exceeds the applicable page limits. NRAP 27(d)(2). No good cause appearing, we deny the motion. Accordingly, we also deny as moot the motion to file under seal an appendix accompanying the motion. The clerk shall return, unfiled, the motion for stay pending appeal and the appendix to appellant's motion for stay pending appeal, both received on February 2, 2015.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Hardesty
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Gayle Nathan, District Judge
Pecos Law Group
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP/Las Vegas
Kolodny Law Group
Black & LoBello
Wasser, Cooperman & Carter
Jimmerson Hansen
Seastrom & Seastrom
Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg
Eighth District Court Clerk