Opinion
No. 69986
04-15-2016
NEVEED PANJWANI, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ASHLEY MAXWELL, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to timely serve process.
Having considered petitioner's 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 because some of the factors set forth in Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 126 Nev. 592, 596, 245 P.3d 1198, 1201 (2010), and Scrimer support the district court's decision to grant the untimely motion to enlarge the time for service and to deny petitioner's motion to dismiss, the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558; see Saavedra-Sandoval, 126 Nev. at 596, 245 P.3d at 1201 (providing that upon a showing of good cause, the district court may enlarge the time for service of process); 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. Eric Johnson, District Judge
Hawkins Melendrez, P.C.
Golightly & Vannah, PLLC/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk